Bittu Kumar And Others v. State Of Ut Chd.

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:-21.11.2024 Bittu Kumar and others ... Petitioners

Versus

State of U.T., Chandigarh ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Karan Vir Nanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Bansal, P.P., U.T., Chandigarh.

***** FIR No.

Dated Police Station Section/s 9.12.2023 Cyber Crime Chandigarh 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of Indian Penal Code GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioners seek grant of regular bail in respect of the aforementioned FIR.

2.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Jagpal Singh, wherein the allegations are broadly to the effect that the petitioners had defrauded the complainant of an amount of Rs.71,000/- 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the FIR came to be lodged under some misunderstanding, which has now been resolved and as a matter of fact the parties have compromised the matter. It has been submitted that the petitioners on account of the compromise have also filed a petition in this Court i.e. CRM-M-48505-2024 seeking quashing of FIR on the basis of

( 2 ) compromise and that pursuant to order dated 26.9.2024 passed in CRM-M48505-2024 the parties including first informant Jagpal Singh as well as Manohar Singh have categorically stated before the Illaqa Magistrate that they have compromised the matter and that they would not have any objection for quashing of the FIR.

4.

Mr. Deepanshu Rana, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and has filed Power of Attorney, which is taken on record. He has endorsed the factum of compromise. Learned counsel representing the complainant further stated that the complainant does not have any objection in case the petitioners are granted bail.

5.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submitted that in view of heinous nature of crime and there also being possibility of the petitioners having committed other offences and likelihood of committing more offences, they do not deserve the concession of bail. Learned State counsel, however, informed that the petitioners have been behind bars since December, 2023. It has further been submitted that the petitioners are not involved in any other case. Learned State counsel informed that challan has been presented and charges have been framed in the present case and none out of the cited 19 PWs has been examined.

6.

This Court has considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 7.

Having regard to the fact that the matter is stated to have been compromied amongst the parties and challan has already been presented and the petitioners otherwise have been behind bars since the last more than 11 months, further detention of the petitioners would not be justified.

( 3 ) 8.

The instant petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 21.11.2024 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) Pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No