Naveen Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2024:PHHC:029673

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-10159-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.03.2024 Naveen Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Bhisham Kumar Majoka, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate, for the complainant. FIR No.

Dated Police Station Section/s 26.08.2023 Azad Nagar, Hisar, District Hisar Sections 406 & 420 IPC (Sections 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC added later on) GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of aforementioned FIR.

2.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Amarjeet, wherein it is alleged that on 15.08.2023, his neighbour, namely, Vinod Kumar had borrowed his vehicle i.e. Maruti Celerio bearing registration No.HR20AP-3799 while assuring him that he would return the same within 3/4 days, but the said vehicle was not returned back. Later, the complainant suspected that said Vinod Kumar had further sold off his vehicle. It is further the case of the prosecution that during the course of investigation, it surfaced that the VIMAL KUMAR 2024.03.01 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-10159-2024 (O&M) -2petitioner had prepared forged documents in respect of ownership of the vehicle so as to facilitate its sale.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute arose out of a transaction in respect of car and that the dispute has now been amicably resolved amongst the parties and a petition for quashing of FIR in question has already been filed.

4.

While learned State counsel has opposed the bail, but Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and filed his Vakalatnama, has stated that he has no objection for acceptance of the petition. Learned State counsel has, however, informed that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 3 months and challan already stands presented.

5.

Without commenting anything as regards the merits of the case, but while noticing the custody period of the petitioner and also the nature of offence and that the matter is stated to have been amicably resolved amongst the parties, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. 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.

01.03.2024 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL) Vimal JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No VIMAL KUMAR 2024.03.01 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document