Ramesh Kumar v. Naveen Aggarwal And Another

CRM-A-524-2019
 CRM-A-524-2019 Ramesh Kumar vs. Naveen Aggarwal and another

Present:

Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate and Mr. Prabhpreet Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Vikasdeep, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, DAG, Haryana.

 ***** CRM-A-524-2019 Perusal of the file shows that State of Haryana is not necessary party, as such name of the State is deleted from the array of parties. Registry to do the needful.

Applicant's counsel submits that the present application was filed against acquittal in the year 2018 and he has a very good case on merit.  Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the judgment of acquittal is well reasoned and leave to appeal should not be granted. He further submits that in case, this Court grants leave to appeal and admit the main appeal, its turn will not come for hearing for decades, as such pendency of the appeal may be treated in-consequential for the respondents.  Leave to appeal granted.

Counsel for the respondent submits that he be exempted from furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds before the concerned trial Court or Chief Judicial Magistate. He undertakes to surrender before the majesty of Court as and when this Court directed to do so or in case of reversal of the judgment.  Given such undertaking, there shall be no need to furnish bail bonds/surety bonds by the respondent.

Main appeal Admit.

List for final hearing on its own turn as per its queue following the roster of Negotiable Instruments Act.

It is clarified that the pendency of this appeal shall be in-consequential for any purpose.

 (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 27.09.2024 anju rani ANJU RANI 2024.09.30 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh