Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Monu Ali @ Vijay@ Manoj Rana @ Monu Rana vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 19 December, 2016

Author: Hari Pal Verma

Bench: Hari Pal Verma

       209.
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                           AT CHANDIGARH

                                 CRM-M-38910-2016
                                 Date of decision:19.12.2016

       MONU ALI @ VIJAY@ MANOJ RANA @ MONU RANA ... Petitioner

                                         versus


       STATE OF HARYANA & ANR                                     .... Respondents


       CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA
                            ----

       Present:     Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate,
                    for the petitioner.

                    Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana,
                    for respondent No.1.

                    Mr. Ankit Grewal, Advocate,
                    for respondent No.2.
                                      ----

       HARI PAL VERMA, J.(Oral)

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.230 dated 04.05.2016 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that a compromise has been effected between the parties and accordingly, the complainant- respondent No.2 has submitted an affidavit dated 18.10.2016 (Annexure P-

2). As per said affidavit of the complainant-Amit Kumar Tyagi, nothing is outstanding against the petitioner and the complainant has no objection in case the petitioner is released on bail.

Mr. Ankit Grewal, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and filed memorandum of appearance which is taken on For Subsequent orders see CRM-M-38981-2016, CRM-M-39073-2016, -- and 1 more.

1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2016 08:05:53 ::: CRM-M-38910-2016 -2- record. He does not dispute the execution of the affidavit dated 18.10.2016 (Annexure P-2).

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Raj Kumar, also admits the execution of affidavit by respondent No.2-complainant, namely, Amit Kumar Tyagi. He states that the challan has been presented in the case.

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Taking into consideration the fact that the compromise has been effected between the parties and even otherwise, the trial in the case will take sufficient long time, petitioner is admitted on bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Accordingly, present petition stands allowed.




                                                      (HARI PAL VERMA)
                                                           JUDGE
       19.12.2016
       sanjeev

                           Whether speaking/reasoned?        Yes/No
                           Whether reportable?               Yes/No




For Subsequent orders see CRM-M-38981-2016, CRM-M-39073-2016, -- and 1 more.

2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2016 08:05:54 :::