High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/14267/2017allowed

Atul Verma v. State Of Haryana

2017-09-06Mr. Justice Harminder Singh Madaan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-14267-2017 Date of decision: 06.09.2017 Atul Verma .... Petitioner versus State of Haryana .... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present:

Mr. J.P.S.Sarao, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

***** Anupinder Singh Grewal, J.

The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.358 dated 06.11.2016 under Section 406/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula (Hry.).

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner had obtained a loan of ` 7.50 lakhs from the complainant, which had not been returned. He further states that the complainant had already instituted a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as the cheques issued by the petitioner were dishonoured in which the petitioner has been summoned. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.05.2017 had directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer and to join the investigation and in the event of arrest, he would be released on interim bail subject to the satisfaction of the Investigating/Arresting Officer.

Sonia Bura 2017.09.06 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

CRM-M-14267-2017 -2Learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Rajpal, states that although the petitioner has joined the investigation but the money has not been recovered from the petitioner.

The allegations against the petitioner pertain to not repaying the loan of ` 7.50 lakhs, which has been obtained by the petitioner by way of agreement (Annexure P-9). The complainant has already filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheques prior to the registration of FIR. In such circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted. In view of the above and without commenting on the merits of the case, the order dated 26.05.2017, granting ad-interim bail to the petitioner, is hereby made absolute. However, the petitioner shall abide by the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

06.09.2017 (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) sonia JUDGE

1. Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes

2. Whether reportable?

Yes/No Sonia Bura 2017.09.06 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh