Sandeep Kumar Kewalramani v. State Of Haryana

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. Misc. No.M-7835 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 13, 2020 Sandeep Kumar Kewalramani ..........PETITIONER(s).

VERSUS

State of Haryana ........RESPONDENT(s).

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Rajnish Ranjan, Advocate for the petitioner (s).

Mr. Sandeep Singh Mann, Addl.A.G. Haryana.

Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Chopra, Advocate for the complainant.

******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) This is second petition filed under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 63 dated 07.02.2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Sector 50, Gurugram (Economic Offence Wing), Haryana. Heard.

Reply on behalf of respondent No.1 filed, which is taken on record.

Learned State counsel submits that compromise between the petitioner and the complainant has been verified and found to be correct.

-2Part payment as per memorandum of understanding, copy of which has been placed on file as Annexure P-1, has already been made. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has also got prepared a draft of amount of `15 lakhs, which is payable by 16.03.2020 and will hand over the same to the complainants or their counsel. Learned counsel for the complainant also certifies that the parties have entered into compromise by way of memorandum of understanding (Annexure P-1) and he has no objection, if the bail application is allowed, subject to compliance of terms of the memorandum of understanding (Annexure P-1).

Keeping in view the fact that the parties have entered into amicable settlement and part payment as per memorandum of understanding has already been made, this petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of `10 lakhs with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, subject to following terms:- a. The petitioner shall comply with the conditions mentioned in Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

b. In the event of his absence on any date of hearing, the benefit of bail allowed to the petitioner shall stand withdrawn. The trial Court shall be competent to cancel his bail bond and surety bond and proceed to procure his presence in accordance with law. In that eventuality the petitioner shall have to apply for bail afresh.

c. He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

It is, however, made clear that petitioner will comply with the

-3terms and conditions of memorandum of understanding (Annexure P-1), failing which State/complainant(s) will be entitled to seek cancellation of bail allowed to the petitioner.

( SURINDER GUPTA ) March 13, 2020 JUDGE Sachin M.

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No