Parveen Kumar v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

(1) Criminal Misc. No.M-21347 of 2017 .....

Date of decision:14.11.2017 Parveen Kumar .....Petitioner v.

State of Punjab .....Respondent ....

(2) Criminal Misc. No.M-27293 of 2017 .....

Sonu Kumar .....Petitioner v.

State of Punjab .....Respondent ....

Present:

Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.M21347 of 2017. Mr. Kapil Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.M-27293 of 2017.

Mr. K.S. Aulakh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the complainant. .....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This order will dispose of the above mentioned two petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.62 dated 12.5.2017 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Balachaur, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

Notice of motion has been issued in these cases.

Cr. Misc. Nos.M-21347 of 2017 etc.

[2] Mr. K.S. Aulakh, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Sandeep Arora, learned Advocate appeared for the complainant and contested these petitions.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State and have gone through the record.

The petitioners have already joined the investigation. The petitioners have already paid `5 Lakhs as per compromise and post-dated cheques have been given to the complainant. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the compromise between the parties and the fact that the petitioners are not required for custodial interrogation, no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners to custody.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find merit in these petitions and the same are allowed. The interim orders dated 7.6.2017 and 31.7.2017 respectively passed by this Court granting interim bail to the petitioners are made absolute. However, the petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

November 14, 2017.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp*

Cr. Misc. Nos.M-21347 of 2017 etc.

[3] NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No