Neena Nayyar v. State Of Punjab And Another

CRM-M-47794-2024 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-47794-2024 (O&M) Date of decision:18.10.2024 Neena Nayyar ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab & another ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.

Present:

Mr. Manjot Gujral, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Harsh Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2/complainant. ...

SUKHVINDER KAUR, J.(ORAL).

1.

This is the second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner Neena Nayyar in FIR No.104 dated 02.06.2023 under Section 420/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Lambi, District Shri Muktsar Sahib. 2.

The earlier/first anticipatory bail i.e. CRM-M-44548-2024 filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.09.2024 of this Court.

3.

FIR in the present case was registered on the written complaint moved by complainant Rosy Gupta, who alleged that her husband, who was running a filling station met Neena Nayyar (present accused) and her husband Sanjeev Nayyar. Accused persons misrepresented that accused Sanjeev Nayyar was working as G.M. with G.A.I.L. and was having the power to issue license for CNG, petrol and diesel pumps. On the pretext that he would get them lease of 33 years for petrol pump and 2 CNG pumps duped them sum of Rs.40 lakhs. HARJEET KAUR 2024.10.18 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-47794-2024 (O&M) -2Upon the said assurance by the accused persons, complainant transferred them Rs.40 lakhs on different dates but they were not issued any license for petrol pump and the money taken by the accused persons was not returned. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced on record order dated 22.07.2024 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in CRM-M35480-2023 vide which anticipatory bail of co-accused, Sanjeev Nayyar, husband of the petitioner was allowed on the ground that the matter stood amicably resolved and the entire agreed amount of Rs.40 lakhs had been paid. 5.

Today also learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 has endorsed the factum of compromise and has stated that agreed amount of Rs.40 lakhs has been received by the complainant. He has also submitted that complainant has no objection if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner Neena Nayyar.

6.

Keeping in view the aforesaid and without any expression on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of her arrest subject to her furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting/Investigating Officer. Petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon and shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 7.

Disposed of.

( SUKHVINDER KAUR ) JUDGE 18.10.2024 harjeet Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2024.10.18 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH