Disposed

Sudhir Vasdev v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Nov 2023CRM-M/25684/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of regular bail. Instead of cancellation, the Court imposed a mandatory condition restraining the accused from entering the petitioner's property, workplace, residence, or vicinity within one kilometer until witness statements are recorded, citing threats made by the accused.

What did the court decide?

Added a condition to the existing bail order restraining the accused from entering the petitioner's residence, workplace, or property, and not entering within one kilometer of the petitioner's home.

Sudhir Vasdev Vs State of Haryana and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

2023:PHHC:146174

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

213

¶4

CRM-M-25684-2023 Date of Decision: 17.11.2023

¶5

Sudhir Vasdev ......... Pe��oner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and another ......... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶9

Present:Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate and Mr. Ishaan Dogra, Advocate for the pe��oner. Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

¶10

Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶11

¶12

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

FIR No.	Dated	Police Sta2on	Sec2ons
19	15.06.2022	SVB, Faridabad,	7, 7A, 13(1)-B of Preven�on
		Haryana	of Corrup�on Act, 1988 and
			384,467,468,471,120-B IPC

¶14

The present pe��on has been filed under Sec�on 439(2) read with Sec�on 482 Cr.P.C. seeking cancella�on of the regular bail granted by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad to respondent No. 2 vide order dated 10.03.2023 in the above cap�oned

¶15

FIR.

¶16

Reply dated 16.11.2023 filed by respondent No. 2 today in the Court is taken on record. Copy of the same has been supplied to counsel for the pe��oner as well as State

¶17

counsel.

¶18

In addi�on to arguments on merits, the main ques�on for which the complainant-pe��oner seeks cancella�on of bail is that a=er ge>ng the bail, respondent

¶19

No. 2 is threatening him.

¶20

At this, counsel for respondent No. 2 on instruc�ons states that if there is any

¶21

such posi�on, respondent No. 2 would not threaten the pe��oner in future. He further

¶22

JYOTI 2023.11.20 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-25684-2023

2023:PHHC:146174

-2-

submits that respondent No. 2 would have no objec�on in case this Court imposes any

¶27

addi�onal condi�ons.

¶28

Given above, the present pe��on is disposed of by adding one more condi�on which shall be part of order dated 10.03.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad:

¶29

“Given the nature of the allega�ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, respondent No.2 shall not enter the property, workplace, and the residence of the pe��oner and shall also not enter within a radius of one kilometer from the pe��oner’s home �ll the recording of the statements of all non-ofcial and informal witnesses in the trialfi . This Court is imposing this condi�on to rule out any a$empt by the accused to incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the vic�m. Reference be made to Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Inves�ga�on, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and Aparna Bha$ v. The State of Madhya Pradesh , 2021:INSC:192 , 2021 SCC Online SC 230.”

¶30