Vikram Bhambhu v. State Of Haryana

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-16551-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 14.10.2020 Vikram Bhambhu ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant. (Proceedings conducted through video conferencing) ***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral) 1.

The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No.167, dated 26.5.2020, Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad, under Sections 120-B, 307, 323, 325, 341, 394, 427 and 506 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act.

2.

On the last date of hearing it had been represented that the parties have amicably resolved their issues and have compromised the matter. Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, Advocate, representing the complainant had also endorsed the factum of compromise. 3.

On the last date, this Court upon noticing the number of injuries sustained by injured Atul Raj including an injury on his head had MOHAN SINGH 2020.10.14 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

- 2 - CRM-M-16551-2020 (O&M) ordered that the factum of compromise would be considered towards bail subject to the condition that the accused compensate the injured to the extent of `2 lakhs collectively as an interim measure in addition to the terms of compromise which may have already been settled.

4.

Today, learned counsel for the complainant has stated that pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the complainant has received an amount of `2 lakhs from the accused and that he has no objection for grant of anticipatory bail as the matter has since been compromised. 5.

Learned State counsel, upon instructions from ASI Mahender Singh has informed that the petitioner has since joined investigation. 6.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances wherein the parties apparently have resolved their issues and have entered into a compromise and while also noticing that the petitioner has already joined investigation, his custodial interrogation is not warranted. The petition, as such is hereby accepted and interim directions issued vide order dated 8.7.2020 are made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner shall appear and join investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. October 14, 2020 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL) mohan JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No MOHAN SINGH 2020.10.14 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document