Paras Batra v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision:3.3.2020 PARAS BATRA .....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashok Singh Choudhary, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** GURVINDER SINGH GILL , J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking grant of regular bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No.573 dated 4.10.2019 under Sections 420, 408 IPC (Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC added later on) at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

2. The FIR was lodged at the instance of Savnish Arora wherein it has been alleged that Paras Batra (petitioner) was working as an Accountant in his firm and that by way of cheating said Paras Batra transferred an amount of `4,89,950/- through on-line banking into his bank account from the account of the firm. It is further alleged that said Paras Batra had also withdrawn an amount of `2,50,000/- by way of two separate cheques and that in this manner he had usurped a total amount of the firm amounting to `7,39,950/-.

( 2 )

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that whatever transactions had been made those had been made at the instance of complainant himself as the petitioner admittedly was working as an Accountant in his firm.

4. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since a part of the amount allegedly usurped was transferred into the bank account of the petitioner, his complicity is clearly made out and there is no case for grant of bail. Learned State counsel has however informed that the petitioner has been behind bars since last about 5 months and out of the cited 13 PWs, no PW has been examined till date.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting anything on merits of the case and while keeping in view that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for about 5 months and that out of the cited 13 PWs, no PW has been examined till date, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose as the conclusion of trial is likely to take some time.

6. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

( GURVINDER SINGH GILL) 3.3.2020 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No

( 3 )