Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mani Bhushan vs State Of Haryana on 17 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
106 es 2024: PHHC O8BU9S 8 . SRS RAC INO SS IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33751-2024 DECIDED ON: 17.07.2024 MANI BHUSHAN -------------- ee PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA nee RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Neeraj Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.284, dated 06.05.2024, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 180 of IPC, registered at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no transaction ever took place between the petitioner and the complainant and the alleged transactions whatsoever have taken place between the complainant and co- accused Narender, who has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 31.05.2024, passed in CRM-M-28998-2024 (Annexure P-2),. He further contends that the petitioner was not initially named in the FIR but was subsequently nominated on the basis of disclosure statement and even there is no evidence on record which can connect the petitioner with the alleged occurrence.
3. Notice of motion.
4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. B.S. Virk, St. DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that the POONAM NEGI 2024.07.17 17:56 | attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-33751-2024 -2-allegation in the FIR coming forth is to the effect that said amount was taken against a promise for providing job to the son of the complainant but since the petitioner and co-accused Narender failed to adhere to the said commitment, the instant FIR has been lodged. However, he could not dispute the above said fact that the petitioner was not initially named in the FIR but was subsequently roped in only on the basis of disclosure statement.
5. Be that as it may, having regard to the submissions made by respective parties, this Court does not find it a fit case for custodial interrogation of the petitioner in any manner wherein already the issue qua the payment which is in dispute has been raised under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by way of filing a complaint before the competent Court and the same is pending adjudication.
6. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to his joining investigation with the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of one week from today, on furnishing of personal/surety bonds to his satisfaction. The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.
7. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not comply with the aforesaid direction of joining the investigation within one week, the order passed by this Court today shall automatically stands cancelled.
8. The petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 17.07.2024 JUDGE Poonam Negi Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No roonam nedWhether reportable Yes/No 2024.07.17 17:56 | attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.