Mukesh v. State Of Haryana

CRM No. M-19625 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH (205) CRM No. M-19625 of 2020 Date of Decision : 07.08.2020 Mukesh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present:- Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Malik, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana (keeping in view the advance copy given) *** Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 476, dated 23.12.2019, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and under Section 3(2)/4(1) of Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013 and under Section 3/4 of the Permission of Conduct of Price Chit of Money Circulation Act, 1978, registered at Police Station Bhiwani Civil Lines, District Bhiwani. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to compromise and pay back the full disputed amount i.e. Rs.4,81,280/- to the complainant and after the payment of the said amount, petitioner be granted the benefit of regular bail. Notice of motion.

Mr. Vishal Malik, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, who has also joined the proceedings through video conference, keeping in view the service of advance copy of petition, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. Learned State counsel states that petitioner is involved in NARESH KUMAR 2020.08.07 19:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No. M-19625 of 2020 other cases and, therefore, petitioner be not granted the concession of regular bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is on bail in all the cases except the present case and in the present case, petitioner has already undertaken to pay the full disputed amount to the complainant before he is extended the benefit of regular bail. Keeping in view the above, petitioner is granted the benefit of regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, subject to the condition that petitioner will pay the disputed amount of Rs.4,81,280/- to the complainant before he is released on bail.

The trial Court/Duty Magistrate, apart from putting the other conditions, will ensure that petitioner has already paid the disputed amount mentioned hereinbefore to the complainant and the proof of the payment is placed on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that petitioner will not obstruct the trial in any manner or influence the witnesses, whose statement is yet to be recorded and in case of default of the above undertaking, the State will be at liberty to approach this Court for passing appropriate orders.

However, it is made clear that anything observed herein shall not be construed to be an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.

August 07, 2020 ( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) kanchan/naresh.k JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes Whether reportable?

No NARESH KUMAR 2020.08.07 19:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh