Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15496 = 2020 L.A.R. (e-Suppl.) 1450
Decided on: 01.09.2020
IN VIRTUAL COURT
Alongwith
CRM-M No. 25463 of 2020, Nitin Bansal v. State of Haryana and another
Present:
Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner(s)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 384, 406, 420 – Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of 1983), Section 24 -- Anticipatory bail – First application for anticipatory bail declined -- Second application after compromise -- Complainant has expressed his no objection to the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners – Petitioners are granted concession of anticipatory bail.
(Para 2, 7,8)
***
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (ORAL) –
1. This order shall dispose of above titled two petitions bearing No. CRM-M No. 25400 of 2020 filed by the petitioner Nitin Goyal and CRM-M No. 25463 of 2020, filed by the petitioner Nitin Bansal, under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 90 dated 8.6.2020, registered under Sections 384, 406 and 420 IPC and Section 24 of Immigration Act, at Police Station Nighdu, District Karnal.
2. At the outset, it is apposite to note that one of the petitioners, Nitin Bansal had earlier applied for anticipatory bail in this matter. However, the same was dismissed on merits by this Court; vide order dated 13.7.2020, passed in CRM-M No. 18291 of 2020.
3. However, now the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that with the intervention of respectable, the parties have settled the dispute. Now even the complainant does not have any objection to the grant of anticipatory bail to these petitioners. Still further, it is submitted that except the present FIR, there is no other case against the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners deserve to be granted concession of anticipatory bail.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Mr. R.S. Jhand, Addl. AG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State and Mr. Arjun Dhingra, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant.
6. The counsel for the State, being instructed by SI Rohtash, has submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. However, it is not disputed that there is no other case against the petitioners.
7. The counsel for the complainant has not disputed the factum of compromise having been arrived at between the parties. Accordingly, the counsel for the complainant has expressed his no objection to the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
8. In view of the above, but without making any further comments on the merits of the cases, the present petitions are allowed. The petitioners are granted concession of anticipatory bail. Therefore, it is directed that in case of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/ Investigating Officer. However, it is further directed that 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.
9. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case.
Petitions allowed.
********