Allowed

Mohit Srivastava v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Nov 2010CRM-M/31164/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench made pending interim anticipatory bail orders absolute. It observed that petitioners had joined the investigation and the State raised no objection to their release on bail. The matter was disposed of without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 25.10.2010 granting interim bail were made absolute; petitions disposed of.

Mohit Srivastava Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl.M.No.M-31164 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

1. Crl.M.No.M-31164 of 2010 (O&M) Mohit Srivastava .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent 2. Crl.M.No.M-31170 of 2010 (O&M) Meenakshi Kalia .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent Date of Decision: November 18, 2010

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶6

Present: Mr.Sameer Rathore, Advocate for Mr.R.K.Rana, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶7

Mr.P.M.Anand, Addl.A.G., Haryana.

¶8

Mr.Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the complainant.

¶9

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶10

This order will dispose of both the aforementioned petitions bearing Crl.M.Nos.M-31164 and 31170 of 2010, filed by petitioners under Section 438 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to them in case FIR No.509, dated 29.8.2010, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, registered at Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

¶11

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.

¶12

This Court while issuing notice of motion in Crl.M.No.M31164 of 2010, passed the following order on 25.10.2010

¶13

“Crl.M.Nos.55620 and 55622 of 2010

¶14

Requests for placing on record Annexures P1 to P8.

¶15

The same are taken on record subject to all just

¶16

-2-

¶17

Crl.M.No.M-31164 of 2010 (O&M)

¶18

exceptions.

¶19

Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly. Crl.M.No.55621 of 2010

¶20

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-31164 of 2010

¶21

Contends that even as per averments made in the FIR, a sum of Rs.15,50,000/- was paid in cash for admitting the complainant as a partner in the business of the petitioner-Mohit Srivastava. Further contends that dispute is regarding settlement of accounts of the said business concern and hence the dispute is purely civil in nature.

¶22

Notice of motion for 18.11.2010.

¶23

However, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”

¶24

On the same day, i.e., 25.10.2010, the following order was passed by this Court in Crl.M.No.M-31170 of 2010:-

¶25

“Crl.M.Nos.55633 and 55635 of 2010

¶26

Requests for placing on record Annexures P1 to P7.

¶27

The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

¶28

Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly. Crl.M.No.55634 of 2010

¶29

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-31170 of 2010

¶30

Contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as she is wife of co-accused Mohit Srivastava. Further contends that dispute, if any, between the complainant and husband of petitioner is civil in nature, even as per averments made in the FIR. Further contends that allegations are that an amount of Rs.15,50,000/- was paid to husband of the petitioner in cash for admitting the complainant as a partner in the business.

¶31

-3-

¶32

Crl.M.No.M-31164 of 2010 (O&M)

¶33

Notice of motion for 18.11.2010.

¶34

However, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case she is arrested, she shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”

¶35

It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that pursuant to the said orders, the petitioners have already joined the investigation.

¶36

It has been stated by learned State counsel as well that the petitioners have joined the investigation and that they are no more required for any custodial interrogation by the police.

¶37

However, bail applications have been opposed by learned counsel for the complainant.

¶38

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

¶39

In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both orders dated 25.10.2010, granting interim bail to petitioners-Mohit Srivastava and Meenakshi Kalia, are, hereby made absolute subject to the compliance of conditions contained in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

¶40

Both the present petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶41

18.11.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge

Mohit Srivastava v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Srivastava v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Bittu Vs State of Punjab

Nirmala Devi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Jagdamba Precision Products Vs Director of Inds. Hy. and Anr.

Krishan Kumar Sachar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Sunishchai Sachar Vs State of Punjab