Yadwinder Deep Singh vs Union Territory

S.S. Saron, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 5.5.2009 for the offences under Sections 448, 452, 420, 467, 468, 506 and 120B IPC at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh.

The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Rajiv Vashisht, who has alleged that he was a tenant since 7.8.2008 at First Floor of House No. 1014, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. He had taken the said house on rent from Suresh Inder Singh vide agreement dated 7.8.2008. After 5-6 days, his friend Yadwinder Deep Singh (petitioner) came to the house of the complainant and said that he had to live there for 2-3 days as a guest. He started living in his house. On 13.8.2008, the complainant went abroad and after about 8 days when he came back, he saw that his friend (petitioner) had placed his furniture in the bed room, dining room and store room. When he asked in this regard, the petitioner replied that this furniture had been purchased by him for his wife and children and upon getting the house he would take away the entire articles. Thereafter, the complainant again went abroad and on arrival saw that his friend Yadwinder Deep Singh (petitioner) had taken an Airtel Landline connection in the house. The landlord of the complainant also told him that lot of people visit his friend and that he had given his house only to him (complainant). The complainant then asked his friend (petitioner) that he had come over there as a guest and he should take away his articles and vacate his house. Upon this Yadwinder Deep Singh (petitioner) stated that he has more articles than him (complainant), therefore, the complainant should vacate the house. The petitioner himself made information regarding tenant in his own hands and appended forged signatures of the landlord and the application was dated 13.10.2008. He gave the information to the Beat Box, Sector 8, Chandigarh. The complainant came to know this from him when he asked his friend as to why he had done this fake work. The petitioner then threatened to kill the complainant and asked him to vacate the house. The petitioner also filed a case against the complainant and his landlord in the District Court at Chandigarh which was to the effect that he may be allowed to live in that house. During proceedings of the Court, it came to the fore that the petitioner had appended with his case file Airtel Landline bill, statement of HDFC Bank, Sector 9, Chandigarh, T.V. Bill and electricity Bill. The aforesaid documents, it was alleged, had been appended by the petitioner in order to prove himself the tenant. In this regard, the complainant had also given an application to the SSP. The petitioner and his 2-3 friends had trespassed into the house of the complainant and by preparing forged documents he had threatened to kill him. It was requested that legal action be taken. The complainant had apprehension of danger to his life; besides, the petitioner had forcibly taken possession of the house and had tried to forcibly push the complainant out and also insulted him. On the said statement, the FIR was registered.

There has been a long drawn litigation. It is admitted case of the parties now that the application seeking temporary injunction filed by the petitioner to live in the house has since been declined right upto the Supreme Court of India. The possession of the house is now with the landlord Suresh Inder Singh. The complainant has also left the premises. Therefore, the dispute is regarding the LCD TV and the petitioner has deposited the same vide DRR No. 30 dated 20.8.2010 recorded at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh. According to the complainant, the home-theatre is still to be recovered.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not have the home-theatre as the complainant had taken possession of the house and his articles are also missing, therefore, he is not in a position to give home-theatre. The petitioner was initially granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 11.6.2009. The petitioner has joined the investigation from time to time, however, according to the learned Counsel for the U.T. Administration, he has not fully cooperated with the prosecution.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that the petitioner has now vacated premises which he is said to have forcibly occupied; besides, he has deposited the LCD T.V. it would be just and expedient to confirm the interim bail. It may be noticed that at one point of time, the petitioner and the complainant were good friends and according to the complainant he himself had allowed the petitioner to live in the house for some days. May be at some time they may be able to amicably resolve the dispute.

In the afore-noticed facts and circumstances, the interim bail granted on 11.6.2009 is made absolute and shall continue till the filing of the report by the Police. The petitioner shall, however, join investigation as and when called and shall abide by the conditions laid down in terms of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.