Abhishek Jain v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 29.11.2023 ABHISHEK JAIN ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :

Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. A.K. Sehrawat, DAG, Haryana.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) On 20.09.2023, the following order was passed :- Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.332 dated 04.06.2023 registered for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 IPC at Police Station Ambala City, District Amabla, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking prearrest bail. Inter-alia submits that the present FIR is a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the complainant after cheques issued by him were dishonoured and even if all the allegations are taken on their face value, the same would be a case of civil nature as the same shall amount to settlement of accounts between the parties having commercial transaction. Notice of motion.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Gaurav Bansal, D.A.G.,

Haryana appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.

Adjourned to 29.11.2023.

In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/ Investigating Officer. As and when called, the petitioner shall join the investigation. He shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

2.

Today, Ld. State Counsel on instructions from ASI Rakesh Kumar submits that the petitioner has already joined investigation and is no more required for custodial interrogation.

3.

Without commenting on the merits of the case and in view of the aforesaid fact, order dated 20.09.2023 is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Sections 438(2) Cr.P.C. 4.

This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not be read granting the petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence. 5.

This order does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency to investigate into the charges against the petitioner.

6.

The petitioner shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by the petitioner in case the occasion

arises.

7.

It will be open to the police or the investigating agency to move this Court for a direction under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, noncooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial. 8.

Petition stands disposed off accordingly.

November 29, 2023 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No