High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/18289/2025disposed of

Gurjinder Singh And Another v. Vinay Setia Alias Vinay Kumar Setia

2025-04-03Mr. Justice H.S. Grewal2 pages

CRM-M No.18289 of 2025 -1- 133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.18289 of 2025 Date of decision: 03.04.2025 Gurjinder Singh and Another .....Petitioners

Versus

Vinay Setia @ Vinay Kumar Setia .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL

Present:

Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. *** 1.

The petitioner in the present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is seeking quashing part of the impugned order dated 11.02.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the appellate Court in CRA No.55 of 2025 titled as "Gurjinder Singh and another Vs. Vinay Setia" vide which an onerous condition directing deposit of 20% of the compensation amount within a period of 60 days has been imposed on the petitioner while admitting him to bail. 2.

It is a case of the petitioner that he has already deposited the entire settled amount under the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer on 08.09.2018 before the National Lok Adalat in a rent petition and the said fact has been admitted by the respondent-complainant. It is pertinent to mention that in para 24 of the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the trial court, the complainant has admitted in his cross examination that he does not know whether the aforesaid amount was deposited before the Treasury. However, he has also admitted that the complainant filed an application before the Court to withdraw the amount of Sonia Puri 2025.04.10 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.18289 of 2025 -2- Rs.10.50 lakhs but later on, the said application was withdrawn by the respondentcomplainant. 3.

In the light of the matter, since the complainant has admitted the fact that he was not aware of the deposit of the amount with the Treasury and that he could not have withdrawn the same. Therefore, the petitioner could not be asked again to deposit 20% of the amount which has already been deposited by the petitioner with the Treasury. 4.

In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to decide this case without issuing notice to respondent No.2 and the present petition is disposed of while remanding the matter to learned appellate Court with directions that the condition of deposit of 20% of compensation amount be waived off while admitting the petitioner to bail during the pendency of his appeal before the Appellate Court. The petitioner is directed to appear before the appellate Court on 30.04.2025. 5.

The petition stands allowed. 03rd April, 2025 (H.S. GREWAL) Sonia Puri JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No Sonia Puri 2025.04.10 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document