High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/32854/2014disposed of

Rajan Grover v. State Of Haryana

2015-07-06Mr Justice Gurdev Singh2 pages

CRM-M-32854 of 2014 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-32854 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision : 06.07.2015 Rajan Grover .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH

Present:

Mr. Vikas Cuccria, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Dimple Jain, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Shakil Akhtar, Advocate for the complainant.

R.P. Nagrath, J. (Oral) Petitioner seeks bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 125 dated 28.03.2014 for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Police Station Susant Lok. Learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over bank draft No. 037415 dated 04.07.2015 amounting to ` 40 lacs, which is the balance amount with regard to dispute between the parties.

Learned counsel for the complainant states that entire amount of ` 80 lacs has since been paid to the satisfaction of complainant and complainant would not oppose the prayer for grant of bail.

The petitioner, however, did not surrender before the trial Court on 06.06.2015 as was directed by this Court on 28.05.2015, but he was arrested in another FIR No. 243 of 2014 on 09.06.2015 and is in detention since then. JITENDER KUMAR 2015.07.07 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-32854 of 2014 -2In view of the aforesaid discussion, the interim bail earlier granted by this Court on 29.01.2015, is made absolute and bail bonds furnished by the petitioner before trial Court shall continue during pendency of the trial.

Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that in view of the aforesaid settlement between the parties, the complainant would not have any objection if the FIR and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and that the complainant would abide by the said undertaking. For that matter, the petitioner would be at liberty to file appropriate petition based on compromise.

The passport which was surrendered by the petitioner under the direction of this Court, shall be released to him, subject of course to the fact that the same is not required in the FIR which has been registered against him separately.

In view of the above, CRM No. 20063 of 2015, filed by the complainant for cancellation of interim bail granted to the petitioner, is rendered infructuous and the same is disposed of as such.

July 06, 2015 ( R.P. NAGRATH ) jk JUDGE JITENDER KUMAR 2015.07.07 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh