Shailesh Kumar Pandy @ Shailesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U T Chandigrh
Punjab & Haryana HCCRM-M/13666/2020
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA…
What the court decided
AI extract
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM-M-13666-2020�����
207
���
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-13666-2020(O&M) Date of decision: 20.07.2020
Shailesh Kumar Pandy @ Shailesh Kumar Pandey
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.T. Chandigarh
.....Respondent
�����������������������������������������������
���������������������������� �!�����"����
��������������������������������
!���������#����������������"������"�������������������"�
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for
grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 24 dated 21.01.2018 registered under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC and Sections 66(D) of IT Act, at Police Station West, Sector-11, Chandigarh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that a compromise has been effected between the petitioner and the complainant. The matter has been settled for a sum of Rs. 3,55,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has already been handed over to the complainant by way of demand draft dated 13.07.2020. Besides, a cheque dated 20.09.2020 of Rs. 1,55,000/- for the remaining amount has also been handed over to the complainant. The petitioner has been in custody since 06.03.2020.
MANGAL SINGH 2020.07.20 04:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-13666-2020�����
���
207
Learned State counsel has not disputed the facts regarding the custody period of the petitioner and the compromise effected between the petitioner and the complainant. He has pointed out that only the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been paid by way of the demand draft and regarding the remaining amount of Rs. 1,55,000/-, a post dated cheque (dated 20.09.2020) has been issued.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has been in custody since 06.03.2020. Admittedly, a compromise has been effected between the complainant and the petitioner. The trial will take time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner behind the bars. T���������������� �����������$����������������"�����$�������������������������������������������� !����%&������"���������
'�(���������(����$��������������������������������������� ����������������$�������������������������)��������������" ����������� *���+�,,�---%������������������
&������������
����������������������� �����������
�����������
������������
.���������������%����#��"/� 0��%�� .��������������$��/� 0��%��
MANGAL SINGH 2020.07.20 04:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted in a case involving cheating and cheque bounce where a compromise has been effected.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shailesh Kumar Pandy @ Shailesh Kumar Pandey
State of U.T. Chandigarh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court