Sunil Sharma And Others v. State Of Haryana

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

Criminal Misc. No.M-16602 of 2019 .....

Date of decision:17.07.2019 Sunil Sharma and others .....Petitioners v.

State of Haryana .....Respondent ....

Present:

Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Chetan Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.478 dated 18.12.2017 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 506 and 120-B at Police Station Civil Lines, Sonipat, District Sonipat.

Notice of motion has been issued in this case. Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State counsel appearing for the respondent-State and have gone through the record.

As per the prosecution version, the FIR was got registered on the basis of complaint filed by complainant-Sujata. As per the allegations HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2019.07.18 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-16602 of 2019 [2] Ankit Jain was frequent visitor to their house and he was in need of `20 Lakhs. He stated that they are selling their land and they will also arrange Government job to the elder son of the complainant. As per the allegations `15 Lakhs were given for 500 Sq. yards of plot and `5 Lakhs for job of their son.

Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that this FIR has been lodged by the complainant. As per the allegations, other persons Sunil Sharma and Sinu Sharma were also with Ankit Jain and have neither executed any registry nor got the job for the son of the complainant. The present petitioners have already joined the investigation. As stated they are not required for any custodial interrogation. Nothing is to be recovered from them. 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 this petition and the same is allowed. The interim order dated 11.4.2019 passed by this Court granting interim bail to the petitioners is 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. July 17, 2019.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2019.07.18 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh