Sahil Verma vs State Of Punjab on 14 November, 2018

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sahil Verma vs State Of Punjab on 14 November, 2018

Bench: Jaishree Thakur

CRM-M-18501-2016                                                             1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH


                                        CRM-M-18501-2016
                                        Date of decision: 14.11.2018


Sahil Verma

                                                                  ...Petitioner

                                    Versus

State of Punjab
                                                                 ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:      Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate,
              for the petitioner.

              Ms. Rajni Gupta, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

              Mr. Alankar Narula, Advocate, for
              Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate,
              for respondent No.2.

                    ****

JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (ORAL)

This is a petition that has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 86 dated 30.03.2016 under Sections 498-A/ 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

This Court was pleased to pass the following order on 26.05.2016 :-

"Notice of motion, returnable for 12.08.2016. Mr. A.P. Kaushal has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant. He states that the transactions are 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 01-01-2019 02:58:48 ::: CRM-M-18501-2016 2 over almost Rs.2 crores and he would produce the documents.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation and if he is sought to be arrested, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting/investigating officer subject to the conditions laid down in section 438 sub section 2 clauses (i)(ii) and

(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and the parties have settled their dispute amicably.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, confirms the factum of joining investigation by the petitioner.

Since the petitioner has joined the investigation and the parties have settled their dispute, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 26.05.2016 is hereby made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation; will not leave India without permission of the Court and will comply with the conditions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.




14.11.2018                                    (JAISHREE THAKUR)
Satyawan                                                JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned                           Yes.
Whether reportable                                  No.




                                     2 of 2
                  ::: Downloaded on - 01-01-2019 02:58:49 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court