Shiv Raj v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-29006-2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-29006-2022

Reserved on: 22.08.2022

Pronounced on: 29.08.2022 Shiv Raj

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajat Gautam, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Pawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Vidushi Kumar, Advocate Mr. Surya Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Ravinder Chaudhary, Advocate For the complainant.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 02.06.2022 Old Faridabad 406, 420 & 120-B IPC 1.

The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, had come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail. 2.

Vide order dated 18-07-2022, the petitioner was granted interim protection, which is continuing till date.

3.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. 5.

Ld. counsel representing the State opposes bail. Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the petitioner had sold the cars which could not have been registered without disclosing such facts.

REASONING:

6.

The allegations are that the complainant purchased various vehicles from the firm, of which the petitioner is the head of operations (Manager). The selling price of the vehicles is mentioned in the status report, and there is nothing to say that the sale ANJU RANI 2022.08.30 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-29006-2022 price was higher than the market value. The complainant's representatives appear to be ignorant, whereas the petitioner appears very shrewd, but this is no ground to send the accused to pre-trial incarceration. Some vehicles were delivered without registration documents, and some were not delivered despite the money. The possibility of a civil dispute and the criminal cannot be ruled out. The petitioner was granted interim protection, and during the interregnum, there is no allegation that he had intimidated the complainant or the witnesses or that he had hampered the investigation, or despite being called to join the investigation, he did not appear before the investigator. Given the above, there would be no justification to discontinue the interim protection, and the same is made absolute subject to the petitioner complying with the terms of the bail order.

Petition allowed in aforesaid terms. Interim order dated 18.07.2022 is made absolute subject to strict compliance of all terms and conditions. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 29.08.2022 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.

ANJU RANI 2022.08.30 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH