Yatish Kumar @ Anil Kumar v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No. 13700 of 2022 Date of Decision: 06.04.2022 Yatish Kumar @ Anil Kumar .......... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .......... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR

Present:

Mr. Minkal Rawal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana **** SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner, by filing the present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeks grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 06 of 15.07.2021, which was registered against him, at Police Station Cyber Crime, Hisar, constituting therein offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 of the IPC.

2.

The bail applicant-petitioner is stated to be suffering judicial incarceration since 12.10.2021.

3.

The incriminatory role attributed to the bail petitioner in the FIR (supra), is of his duping the complainant of a sum of Rs. 85,000/-. 4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, as a pre-condition, for his being admitted to bail, is ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in the establishment of the learned Magistrate concerned.

5.

Be that as it may, since the bail petitioner is suffering judicial custody since about last six months (approx.), and, also when it is stated at the Bar, by the learned State Counsel, on instructions, meted to him, by the DINESH KUMAR 2022.04.06 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Investigating Officer concerned, that the entire investigations are complete,

CRM-M No. 13700 of 2022 -2and, that very soon, an affirmative report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., would be instituted, by the IO concerned, before the learned trial Court concerned. Consequently, this Court does not deem it fit to order for any prolongation of the judicial incarceration of the petitioner. Contrarily, it is deemed appropriate to admit to bail, the bail petitioner. 6.

Consequently, the instant petition is allowed, and the bail applicant - petitioner is ordered to be released from judicial custody, on his furnishing, within one week, personal and surety bonds in the sum of ` 50,000/- each, before the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, and, also subject to his not tampering with prosecution evidence, and/or not influencing prosecution witnesses, and, also his appearing before the trial Court concerned as and when he is required to be making his personal appearance unless validly exempted.

7.

The afore order, is further subject to the petitioner's, within one week, depositing a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, before the establishment of the learned trial Judge concerned. The disbursement(s) of the afore sums of money, to be deposited, in pursuance to the afore made order, shall be regulated by the outcome of the trial(s), as, become entered, upon, by the learned trial Judge concerned, qua the FIR (supra). April 06, 2022 ( SURESHWAR THAKUR ) 'dk kamra'

JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DINESH KUMAR 2022.04.06 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document