Prithvi Raj And ANR v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-61877-2024 Date of decision: January 21st, 2025 Prithvi Raj and another .....Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rajat Gautam, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Petitioners are seeking the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No.282 dated 03.08.2024 under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Hisar Civil Lines.

2.

Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate, has entered appearance on behalf of the complainant and filed his power of attorney, which is taken on record.

3.

Vide order dated 10.12.2024, the petitioners had been granted interim anticipatory bail with direction to join investigation and the relevant part of the said order reads as under:- "In asking for the relief of pre-arrest bail, learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner is involved only because, he is the father of the main accused, i.e. Sunil Verma, and as per the allegations, the said Sunil Verma, played active role in deception as well as the money was transferred on his asking, and the present petitioner has been involved in PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.01.21 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-61877-2024 -2order to exert pressure upon the main accused-Sunil Verma, and to aggravate the offence."

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance of order dated 10.12.2024, the petitioners have joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. 5.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Rakesh Kumar, does not dispute the factum of the petitioners having joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency. He, on further instructions, submits that the petitioners are not required for further investigation much less for their custodial interrogation. 6.

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

7.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 10.12.2024, is made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./482(2) BNSS.

January 21st, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.01.21 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh