Judgment:
Crl.
Misc.
not M- 13555 of 2013 ----1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl.
Misc.
not M- 13555 of 2013 Date of decision.
29.04.2013 Ganga Lal and anr......Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present:- Mr.Bijender Dhankhar,Advocate for the petitioneRs.-- VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Ganga Lal and Arun Kumar, the petitioners seek pre- arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.82 dated 20.05.2012 at Police Station Hassanpur, District Palwal, for an offence punishable under sections 186, 323, 332, 353, 379 and 506 read with section 34 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted at the very outset that he could not mention section 333 IPC in the list of offences in the head note of the petition and he requests the same be added.
Crl.
Misc.
not M- 13555 of 2013 ----2-- The prayer is allowed.
Necessary correction be made by adding section 333 IPC in the head note of the petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is a case with version and cross-version.
According to him, the complainant is not an employee of Forests Department.
He has further submitted that tree branches were cut from the trees growing in the land of the petitioners themselves.
He has drawn attention of this court to two documents (Annexures P-7 and P-8) in this regard.
According to him, this is a false case got registered by Shyam Sunder, the complainant against his neighbours to settle scores with them.
It is true that Shyam Sunder is not an employee of Forests Department.
There can be no dispute with the documents Annexures P-7 and P-8.
However, a perusal of the FIR would show that Shyam Sunder had claimed himself to be an employee with Irrigation Department and he has claimed that the trees growing by the side of Ujeena drain were cut and removed and he was given blows by the petitioners and others when he tried to prevent them from doing so.
There is no explanation with learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard.
He could not deny the fact that Shyam Sunder is an employee of Irrigation Department.
This is an example Crl.
Misc.
not M- 13555 of 2013 ----3-- of greed and lawlessness on the part of the petitioneRs.They had been after the property of the State and they had even assaulted the employee of Irrigation Department when he tried to prevent them from cutting and taking away the trees standing by the side of Ujeena drain.
Looking to the seriousness of the matter, the petitioners would be required for custodial interrogation for recovery of the stolen property.
Hence, I do not find the petitioners to be entitled to anticipatory bail.
The petition is, consequently, dismissed.
April 29,2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE