Mukesh v. State Of Haryana

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

Criminal Misc. No.M-32815 of 2018 (O&M) .....

Date of decision:19.12.2018 Mukesh

...Petitioner

v.

State of Haryana

...Respondent

....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. Kulwant Singh Dhanora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate for the complainant. .....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.224 dated 12.5.2018 registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

Notice of motion was issued in this case.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has appeared on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Sachin Gupta, learned Advocate has appeared for the complainant and contested this petition.

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2018.12.21 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-32815 of 2018 (O&M) [2] I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From he record, I find that in the present case the petitioner gave statement before this Court that he is ready for compromise and amicably settled with the complainant and the interim relief was granted vide order dated 9.8.2018 by this Court. The petitioner compromised the matter with the complainant, but later on did not adhere to the compromise. Today also, the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the petitioner has not made the payment as per the compromise and has availed the benefit of the interim bail from this Court by giving wrong statement before this Court that he is ready to settle the dispute.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the petitioner has not complied with the compromise and in view of the conduct of the petitioner, I do not find it a fit case where the petitioner is entitled for the grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.

December 19, 2018.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2018.12.21 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh