Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Madaan vs The State Of Haryana on 9 July, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Crl. Misc. No. M-12838 of 2013, -1-
Crl. Misc. No. M-13665 of 2013 &
Crl. Misc. No. M-14774 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(1) Crl. Misc. No. M-12838 of 2013
Ashok Madaan ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana ..Respondent
(2) Crl. Misc. No. M-13665 of 2013
Ram Murti Verma ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ..Respondent
(3) Crl. Misc. No. M-14774 of 2013
Pawan Verma and others ..Petitioners
Versus
The State of Haryana ..Respondent
Date of decision: - 09.07.2013
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate
for the petitioners in 1st and 3rd case.
Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate
for the petitioner in 2nd case.
Mr. Sagar Deswal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
for the State.
Crl. Misc. No. M-12838 of 2013, -2-
Crl. Misc. No. M-13665 of 2013 &
Crl. Misc. No. M-14774 of 2013
****
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
As identical points for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of indicated criminal petitions bearing CRM No.M-12838 of 2013 titled Ashok Madaan Vs. The State of Haryana (for brevity "the 1st case"), CRM No.M-13665 of 2013 titled Ram Murti Verma and State of Haryana (in short "2nd case) and CRM No.M-14774 of 2013 titled Pawan Verma and others Vs. The State of Haryana (for short "the 3rd case"), arising out of the same case/FIR, by means of this common order, to avoid the repetition of facts.
2. Petitioners have preferred the instant separate petitions for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against them, vide FIR No.110 dated 20.03.2013, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, by the police of Police Station Kotwali, District Faridabad, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.
3. Notices of the petitions were issued to the State.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petitions for anticipatory bail deserve to be accepted in this context.
5. During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed, by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Mahesh Grover, J.) in 1st case, on April 25, 2013:-
"Contends that in the entire transaction, which has been referred to in the FIR, he is neither a beneficiary thereof nor having anything to do with the affairs of the firm which took loan and for which the complainant stood a guarantor by Crl. Misc. No. M-12838 of 2013, -3- Crl. Misc. No. M-13665 of 2013 & Crl. Misc. No. M-14774 of 2013 mortgaging his property to create an additional amount of credit limit in favour of the firm. Further contends that even if all the allegations are accepted, it would at best be a civil liability but in any eventuality the petitioner has nothing to do with the affairs of the firm or with the conduct of the complainant in standing a guarantor.
Notice of motion for 9.7.2013.
In the meantime, the arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed subject to the following conditions :-
i) He will make himself available for investigation as and when required to do so.
ii) He will not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court.
iii) He will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police official."
6. Sequelly, similar orders were passed in 2nd case on May 01, 2013 and 3rd case on May 08, 2013.
7. At the very outset, on the instructions from SI Om Parkash, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. All the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even, since the prosecution has not submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.
8. In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of other facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petitions for anticipatory bail are accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioners by this Court, Crl. Misc. No. M-12838 of 2013, -4- Crl. Misc. No. M-13665 of 2013 & Crl. Misc. No. M-14774 of 2013 by virtue of orders dated April 25, 2013 (in 1st case), May 01, 2013 (in 2nd case) and May 08, 2013 (3rd case) are hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this respect.
July 09, 2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) naresh.k Judge