Rajeev Datta v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

2024:PHHC:009707
CRM-M-64921-2023
Date of decision: January 24, 2024

RAJEEV DATTA
.....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Pratap Singh Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Mohan, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
with SI Sukhbir.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)


1.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.97 dated 16.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 420, 406, 506 (370 & 384 added later) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 24 of Immigration Act, registered at Police Station Taraori, District Karnal.
2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that after the registration of the FIR in question, the parties have ironed out their differences and effected an amicable settlement vide compromise dated 20.11.2023 (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel has further submitted that investigation in the case in hand is complete and even charges stand framed, hence, further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose.
3.

Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of the complainant and filed her Memo of Appearance, which is taken on record. She is directed to file her Power of Attorney in the Registry of this Jaspreet Kaur 2024.01.24 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-64921-2023 -2Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has not disputed the submissions made by the counsel opposite and also does not oppose his prayer for enlarging the petitioner on bail.
4.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, has not disputed that the charges were framed on 19.01.2024 and none of the prosecution witnesses have been examined till date.
5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material placed on record.
6.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future, therefore, this Court deems it fit to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. The petition as such is allowed, and the petitioner be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
7.

However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.



January 24, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Jaspreet Kaur JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No
Whether reportable :

Yes/No

Jaspreet Kaur 2024.01.24 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh