Delhi High Court
Mt Kamlesh & Ors vs State on 24 November, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 24th November, 2015
+ BAIL APPLN. 2535/2015
SMT KAMLESH & ORS
..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr.R.P.Singh, Adv.
versus
STATE
..... Respondent
Represented by: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan,
APP for the State with SI
Gaurav Kumar, PS Nand
Nagari, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl. M.A.No.17051/2015 (for exemption)
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
Bail Appln No.2535/2015
1. By way of this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek direction for grant of
anticipatory bail to them in case FIR No.957/2015registered at Police
Station Nand Nagari, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections
380/448/ 457/ 506/34 of the IPC.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that
the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of one Amit Kumar
s/o Sh Satveer Giri staying at House No.D-3, Alaknanda Apartments,
Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP. As per FIR, he had purchased house
bearing No.B-4/416, Nand Nagari, Delhi in the year 2012 and possession
of ground floor was with him. It is admitted that first floor was in
possession of Subhash Chand, one of petitioners. He alleges that there
was single bed, three iron chairs, two chairs of sofa, gas oven and utensils.
The petitioners had broke open the lock and committed theft of aforenoted
items.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the complainant wanted to tress
pass into the property of the petitioners and therefore, the complainant
made a complaint to the police on 15.10.2014 i.e. prior to the registration
of FIR. The petitioner No.1 became owner of the property by virtue of
Will dated 12.11.2002 and she has filed a probate petition in respect of
said Will, which is pending adjudication.
4. If it is believed that the complainant purchased the property in the
year 2012, it is not clear as to how he was staying Ghaziabad and to this
effect there is no explanation as to who was the occupant of the property,
whether on rent or otherwise.
5. Without commenting upon the merits of respective contentions of
parties as they are claiming rival rights over the property in question, I am
of the opinion that petitioners have made out a case for grant of
anticipatory bail in their favour.
6. Consequently, in the event of arrest of petitioners in aforenoted
case, the Investigating Officer/ SHO concerned is directed to release them
on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with
one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Investigating
Officer/SHO concerned. The petitioners shall join the investigation as
and when called for by the Investigating Officer.
7. I hereby make it clear that above observation will not affect the
prosecution case in any manner.
8. In above terms, instant bail application stands allowed and disposed
of.
9. Order dasti.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 24, 2015
M/jg
