Vineet Bajaj v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH (1) Vineet Bajaj
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondent
(2) Pardeep Kumar Aggarwal
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(3) Shamit Aggarwal and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
Date of Decision:- 8.12.2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present:
Mr. J.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, DAG, Haryana.
Ms. Anupam Bhanot, Advocate for the complainant. ***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J .
1. This order shall dispose off the above mentioned three petitions filed on behalf of Vineet Bajaj, Pardeep Kumar Aggarwal, Shamit Aggarwal and Akshit Aggarwal seeking grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered
against them vide FIR No. 448 dated 18.11.2021 under Sections 406, 420/120-B IPC at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula.
2. The allegations, in nutshell, are to the effect that the accused had taken shuttering material from the complainant on rent and had neither returned the same nor had paid the rent in respect of the same which is to the tune of `15 lacs and that the cost of the said shuttering material is `45 lacs.
3. During the course of pendency of these petitions, the parties were referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court wherein the matter has been amicably resolved and a settlement agreement dated 30.9.2022 was entered into amongst the parties, as per which the matter has been settled and pursuant to which part payment of `6 lacs had already been made.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that pursuant to interim directions issued by this Court on 25.7.2022, the amount of `10 lacs had already been deposited before the trial Court.
5. The learned counsel representing the complainant has admitted the factum of settlement amongst the parties and also the receipt of `6 lacs. The learned counsel representing the complainant has also stated that the complainant does not have any objection for grant of anticipatory bail in view of the compromise, though the balance amount is yet to be paid.
6. In view of the aforestated submission, all the petitions are accepted and the the interim directions issued by this Court vide orders dated 22.12.2021, 14.6.2022 and 7.5.2022 passed in CRM-M-52770-2021, CRM-M-264572022 and CRM-M-16112-2022 respectively are hereby made absolute, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall join investigation as and
when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.
7. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected cases. 8.12.2022 (Gurvinder Singh Gill) kamal Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No