KARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Karan Singh, the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 40 dated 30.04.2012 at Police Station Phase VIII, Mohali, for an offence punishable under sections 148, 380, 447,452 , 506 and 511 read with section 149 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner took a portion of the house of the complainant bearing No.1523, Sector 69, Mohali consisting of two bedrooms, drawing room, bathroom, kitchen etc. on rent. According to him, at that time the landlady retained with her possession of two rooms in the said house. He has further submitted that after some time, she had let out those two rooms also by increasing the rent nominally. He has further submitted that the FIR has been lodged falsely thereafter by claiming that the locks lying on the two bedrooms in her possession were broken by the petitioner and he had not only stolen her expensive items e.g. jewellery, watches etc. lying in those rooms but had also occupied those rooms. He has further submitted that the complainant has one daughter in Chandigarh and that she was living with her daughter at Chandigarh and was not living in the house in question and had kept the two rooms in her possession locked. He has further submitted that when the complainant was living at Chandigarh with her daughter, she cannot be believed to have kept her expensive items like jewellery, watches etc. in the rooms of the aforesaid house, which were in her possession. He has further submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required.

(3.) Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that a portion consisting of two rooms, drawing room, kitchen and bath room had been let out to the petitioner and the remaining portion consisting of two rooms was in the possession of the landlady. She has further submitted that the complainant had kept her jewellery and watches in the portion in her possession. She has further submitted that the petitioner has occupied those rooms after breaking open the locks of those rooms and had stolen the costly items. She has further submitted that there was rent note executed between the parties when a portion of the house was taken on rent by the petitioner but no writing is there with the petitioner alleged to have come into existence when the remaining portion was let out to him.