Sumit Kumar v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-10650-2024 2024:PHHC:039297

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-10650-2024 Decided on: 19.03.2024 Sumit Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Balraj Gujjar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 24.01.2024 City Dadri, Distt.

7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act Charkhi Dadri (Haryana) 1.

The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail. 2.

Vide order dated 29.02.2024, this Court had granted interim bail to the petitioner and the said order is continuing till date. Thereafter, on 07.03.2024, reply by the State was filed and the matter was adjourned on request of counsel for the petitioner to go through the reply and after hearing the matter, order was reserved on 11.03.2024. Thereafter, by passing a detailed order, the petitioner was given time to demonstrate his honesty as he voluntarily agreed to declare his all assets at the time of final hearing as mentioned in para 5 of the order dated 13.03.2024. 3.

Consequently, today petitioner's counsel submits that he has complied with the previous order dated 13.03.2024 and voluntarily handed over the affidavit to the investigator. The investigator may verify such assets if required and proceed in accordance with law, if any anomalies found. The concerned investigator is further directed to forward one original copy of the affidavit to the petitioner's employer within two weeks from today. Counsel further submits that custodial interrogation and pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. ANJU RANI 2024.03.22 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-10650-2024 2024:PHHC:039297 4.

Counsel for the State opposes the bail.

5.

I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the petition. 6.

Since this Court had already passed a detailed order and given the para 8 of the order dated 13.03.2024, no further reasoning is required. 7.

Given above and the fact that petitioner has declared his assets voluntarily, petitioner makes out a case for anticipatory bail and it is neither a case of custodial investigation nor pre-trial incarceration.

8.

Given above, petition is allowed and interim order dated 29.02.2024 is made absolute. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 19.03.2024 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.

ANJU RANI 2024.03.22 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document