Avtar Singh v. State

8. / +^^AIL APPLN.2812/2019 HARMINDER SINGH@JOHNY Petitioner Represented by: Mr Pankaj Talwar,Advocate.

VERSUS

9. ^ + BAIL APPLN.2821/2019 AJIT SINGH@ MONU Petitioner Represented by: Mr Pankaj Talwar,Advocate.

VERSUS

Represented by: Mr G. M. Farooqui, APP for the CORAM: BAIL APPLN.2783/2019& other connected matters Page I of[4] 2022:DHC:5946 HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ORDER % 25.01.2022 The hearing has been eonducted through video confereneing.

1. By these petitions, the petitioners seek anticipatory bail in FIR No.0457/2019 under Sections 323/448/451/506/34 IPG registered at PS Hari Nagar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners state that the petitioner Avtar Singh is the father oftwo other petitioners, namely, Ilarminder Singh @ Johny and Ajit Singh@ Monu. Admittedly,the shop was owned by Avtar Singh as the electricity connection was in his name and during the course of investigation statement of the erstwhile owner was also recorded, who stated that Avtar Singh had purchased the shop on pagri twenty years ago. Statements ofthe witnesses were also recorded, during investigation stated that Avtar Singh was the owner ofthe shop. The complainant's allegation was that he was dispossessed is wholly wrong as he himself handed over the keys to the petitioner and,thereafter, lodged the FIR in question. The conduct ofthe petitioner that he was no more running the shop is evident from the fact that he did not pay electricity bills for months together due to which electricity was also disconnected on 14'*^ October,2019.

3. In the above-noted ITR,the complainant Yogesh Kapoor stated that he was running a restaurant in the name and style of'Burra King' at MS- Block, 11/12,Shop No.14-15,Ilari Nagar,Delhi since June,2017. He had taken these shops from Avtar Singh and paid a sum of?5,00,000/- aspagri and also paying a sum of?2,500/- as monthly rent. Though,the electricity meter was in the name ofAvtar Singh,but the complainant was paying the I BAIL APPLN.2783'2019& other connected matters Page 2of[4] 9-9— electricity bills and that for the last five/seven days Avtar Singh and his sons Monu and Johny were coming to his shop threatened him and wanted to take possession of the shops. That on 27* September, 2019, he along with his employee Santosh Thapa was present in the shop when Avtar Singh and his sons came to the shop and threatened to vacate the shop. After some time, two more persons, namely, Kaka and brother-in-law of Monu also came there, all of them forcibly entered their shop with the intent to take possession ofthe shops, however,took papers including the rent receipts issued by Avtar Singh assaulted him and took the articles from their shop including cash of?22,000/- and put their lock on the shop.

4. The Investigating Officer states that after registration of the FIR when shop was opened,one centre table,four chairs and one menu card of 'Burra King' were found there. The electricity bills received were in the name of the petitioner Avtar Singh. Statement of Santosh Thapa, the worker ofthe complainant was also recorded. As per the statements ofthe witnesses, the petitioner Avtar Singh was the owner ofthe said shops and from June,2017to 27* September,2019 the restaurant was being run from these shops by the complainant and the electricity bills from June,2017 to May,2019,the last payment being made on June,2019 was paid by the complainant.

5. It is evident that from June, 2019 till the dispossession, the complainant did not pay the electricity bill and due to which the electricity got disconnected in October,2019. The rest ofthe facts being undisputed the dispute only is as to whether the complainant vacated the premises himselfand then lodged the FIR after a period often days or that he was forcibly dispossessed. Admittedly,the FIR was lodged after ten days ofthe BAIL APPLN.2783/2019di other connected matters Page 3of[4] t » incident and no MLC ofthe complainant was got done as no PCR was informedonthesaiddateandon therecordofthepolicefile,aprescription slip in the name ofthe complainant has been placed and no injuries are shown therein.

6. Considering the nature ofallegations and since the petitioners have alreadyjoinedtheinvestigation,thisCourtdeemsitfittograntanticipatory badtothepetitioner. Itis,therefore,directedthatintheeventofarrest,the petitioners will be released on bail on theirfurnishing a personal bond,n the sum off25,000/- each with one surety bond each ofthe like amount subjecttothesatisfaction ofthe Arresting Officer/SHO concerned,further subject to the condition that they will not leave the country without the priorpermissionofthecourtconcernedand in caseofchangeofresidential addressand/ormobilephonenumberthepetitionerswillinformthesameto theInvestigatingOfficertillthefilingofthecharge-sheetand,thereafter,to the learned Trial Court.

7. Petitions are disposed of.

8. Orderbe uploaded on the websiteofthis Court. JANUARY25,2022 MUK1A GUPTA,J MK bailAPPLN.2783/2019^otherconnectedmatters Page 4of[4] i