Rajpati And Another v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 17.10.2022 Rajpati and another . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Parshant Sethi, Advocate for the complainant. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of regular bail to the petitioners - Rajpati and Sunita, who have been booked for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, in FIR No. 11 dated 06.01.2016, registered at Police Station Hansi City, District Hisar. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that main allegation levelled against the petitioners is of preparing a forged power of attorney regarding the property of the victims, namely, Dheeraj Dewan and Amit and thereafter, sale deed was executed in the name of Rajpati (petitioner No. 1) who is mother of Sunita (petitioner No. 2).

Counsel further submits that after registration of the FIR, petitioners were arrested and are in custody since 31.08.2022. He further submits that the matter has been now compromised between the parties vide compromise dated 17.02.2017 and on the basis of said compromise, a quashing petition i.e. CRM-M-42991-2022 has already been filed before this Court, which is pending consideration for 31.01.2023.

- 2 - Dheeraj Dewan and Amit have already signed the compromise deed dated 17.02.2017 before the Civil Court in the proceedings of civil case between the parties regarding the issue of power of attorney and sale deed executed thereupon, as reflected in the order sheet dated 16.07.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by Learned Additional Civil judge (Senior Division), Hansi. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that matter in the hand is triable by the Court of learned Magistrate and there is no possibility of early conclusion of the trial. He further submits that no other case is pending or registered against the petitioners. Thus, prays, regular bail for the petitioners.

Per contra, while opposing the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State counsel submits that petitioners are involved in serious offence of cheating and fraud, so irrespective of the compromise between the parties (if any), concessional benefits such like bail should not be extended to them. He further submits that matter is still under investigation and release of the petitioners on bail may affect the investigation process.

Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the case is based upon the documentary evidence, said objection of learned State counsel is not sustainable.

However, on being asked by the Court, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Rakesh, submits that petitioners are not involved in any other case of similar nature.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant makes a submission before the Court that the parties have infact settled their dispute and a compromise quashing petition i.e. CRM-M-42991-2022 has duly been filed before this Court which is now fixed for 31.01.2023. Moreover, states that he has no objection, if petitioners are ordered to be released on bail.

- 3 - I have considered the submissions of both the sides, and perused the material available on record with their able assistance. In view of the factual aspects coupled with the reasons that the case is triable by the Court of learned Magistrate and there is no possibility of early conclusion of the trial, no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners inside jail. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the concession of bail to the petitioners.

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions recorded hereabove, present petition is allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in this case, subject to their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case.

It is made clear that the petitioners shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly.

The observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of evidence available on record. However, it is made clear that in future if the petitioners are found involved in any other case of similar nature, respondent-State would be at liberty to take necessary steps for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners in present case.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE October 17, 2022 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No