Varun Gupta v. Ajay Kumar Bansal And ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.11.2018 Varun Gupta ....Petitioner

Versus

Ajay Kumar Bansal and others ....Respondents CRM-M-15792 of 2015 Sonu Bansal ....Petitioner

Versus

Ajay Kumar Bansal and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present: Ms. Sunita Nambiar, Advocate, for Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-18408 of 2015.

Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-15792 of 2015.

Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Advocate, for respondent No.4. RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) By this common order, I shall dispose of above-titled two petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing order dated

-221.04.2015 of the revisional Court, whereby amount of `72,25,000/- has been ordered to be released in favour of respondent No.1 namely, Ajay Kumar Bansal on furnishing superdginama with one surety in the like amount in the sum equivalent to the aforesaid amount and also to execute and submit indemnity bond with one surety in the equivalent amount to the satisfaction of the revisional Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that application of respondent No.1 for staying the release of said amount on superdari was declined by the trial Court. However, the revisional Court has wrongly and illegally vide impugned order has released the said amount to respondent No.1.

Learned counsel for respondent No.4 pleaded the legality and validity of the impugned order.

Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds both petitions completely devoid of any merit for the reason that aforesaid amount of `72,25,000/- has been released to respondent No.1 against adequate security with one surety of the like amount by the revisional Court vide impugned order. Same is peferctly legal order requiring no interference inasmuch as huge currency, by this time, could not have been kept in the police custody for such a long period, more particularly on account of demonetisation, where there is no safe arrangement to retain such a valuable item. Moreso, rights of the rightful claimant have been protected by the revisional Court by asking respondent No.1 to furnish

-3superdginama and indemnity bond with surety of the like amount each.

Dismissed.

(Ramendra Jain) November 30, 2018 Judge R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No