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 7, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Surinder Pal @ Surinder Malhotra @ ... vs State Of Haryana on 20 January, 2020

Author: Arvind Singh Sangwan

Bench: Arvind Singh Sangwan

CRM-M-32489-2019                                                      -1-


    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
210-10

                                                        CRM-M-32489-2019
                                                 Date of decision: 20.01.2020

Surinder Pal @ Surinder Malhotra @ Surinder Pal i.e. Malhotra

                                                                 ...Petitioner

                                        Versus

State of Haryana
                                                               ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:-   Mr. S. K. Agnihotri, Advocate,
            Mr. S. K. Mishra, Advocate &
            Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Naveen Sheoran, DAG, Haryana.

            Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate,
            Mr. M. S. Nagar, Advocate &
            Mr. Sidhant Bhonsle, Advocate
            for the complainant.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)

The petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 011 dated 15.01.2019, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC at Police Station Sector 31, Faridabad.

On 19.08.2019, while granting interim bail to the petitioner and other co-accused, the following order was passed in the present petition as well as other connected petitions:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner(s), at the very outset, submits that the petitioners are ready to deposit the disputed amount in two installments, subject to final 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2020 01:06:43 ::: CRM-M-32489-2019 -2- outcome of the case. Notice of motion. Mr. Himmat Singh, DAG, Haryana, who is present in the Court accepts notice (in all the petitions) on behalf of the respondent while Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the complainant (in all the petitions). Counsel for the petitioner(s) is directed to supply a copy of paperbook to counsel for the State during course of the day. Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, the petitioner(s) be released on interim bail subject to their furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. The petitioner(s) are directed to deposit 50% of the respective amount as shown in the FIR with the trial Court/Illaqua Magistrate well before the adjourned date i.e. 27.08.2019, subject to the final outcome of the case."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, in pursuance to the order dated 19.08.2019, has already appeared before the SHO/Investigating Officer and has deposited the 50% of the amount as shown in the FIR against him with the trial Court/Illaqua Magistrate.

The aforesaid fact is not disputed by learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Vijender.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner, vide order dated 19.08.2019, is made absolute subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

However, it made clear that in case the petitioner is further required for completing the investigation, he will join the investigation on being served with a written notice by the Investigating Officer in this 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2020 01:06:43 ::: CRM-M-32489-2019 -3- regard.

Liberty is granted to complainant/prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail in case the petitioner is found misusing the concession anticipatory bail or at subsequent stage, it is found that the FDR deposited by the petitioner is not genuine.

The deposit of amount/FDR by the petitioner shall not cause any prejudice to his right of defence and the same shall be subject to final outcome of the case.




20.01.2020                                      (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
Waseem Ansari                                          JUDGE




                Whether speaking/reasoned                     Yes/No

                Whether reportable                            Yes/No




                                     3 of 3
                ::: Downloaded on - 22-01-2020 01:06:43 :::