Full Text
Date of Reserve: 3rd December. 2010
Date of Order: December 10, 2010 Bail Appln. 1187/2010
10.12.2010 Yasmeen Parveen & Anr. ...Petitioner
Mr. G.M. Farooqui for petitioners.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent with Insp. Vijay Kumar
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
JUDGMENT
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? ORDER
1. The petitioners in this case have sought anticipatory bail who have been booked under Sections 406/420/447/448/453/468/471 read with Section 34 IPC.
2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were falsely implicated in this case and the co-accused Mst. Nargis was granted anticipatory bail.
3. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioners was earlier dismissed by this Court. After dismissal of the anticipatory bail application, the petitioners had been absconding and were not available to the police for interrogation. The petitioners have claimed that they were the bonafide purchaser of the property about which trespass has been alleged by the complainant. However, the investigation has revealed that possession of the property in question was handed over to the complainant by the 2010:DHC:5995 Bail Appln. 1187/2010 accused persons after receiving a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- and the complainant immediately started residing in the property. He along with his family went to Bulanshehar on 16th January 2009 and returned on 19th January, 2009. On return he found that the property was occupied by the applicants. Statements of witnesses and neighbours recorded showed that the complainant was in occupation of the flat from 15th November 2009 onward and he had also got installed a water motor, a hand-pump, other fittings and a geyser. He got some electrical work also done in the property. The complainant had acquired this property because he was about to get married. He married on 20th November 2009 and all his dowry articles were placed in the property. Whitewash etc was also got done by the complainant for this purpose.
4. The complainant’s possession and occupation has been shown till 16th January
2009. Trespass into the property and removal of all articles of complainant has been established by the evidence of witnesses. I consider under these circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioners/accused was a necessity. I find no force in this bail application. The application is hereby dismissed. December 10, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J rd