Allowed

Siddharth Chaturvedi v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Sept 2024CRM-M/22876/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in an FIR alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy under IPC. The vehicle value amount had been paid and there was no allegation of non-cooperation with investigation; the court allowed the petition and made interim bail absolute.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; interim order dated 22.07.2024 made absolute.

Siddharth Chaturvedi Vs State of Haryana and… — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

CRM-M-22876-2024

¶3

101+213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M No.22876 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.09.2024

Siddharth Chaturvedi

... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and Others … Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶10

Present: Mr. Shivansh Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

¶12

Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.

¶13

¶14

ANOOP CHITKARA, J .

¶15

CRM-35752-2024

¶16

Allowed as prayed for and Annexures P-29 to P-33 are taken on record.

¶17

Main case

¶18

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
144	11.04.2024	Sushant Lok, Gurugram, District Gurugram	420, 406 and 120-B IPC

¶19

The petitioner apprehending his arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC read with 482 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail.

¶20

Vide order dated 22.07.2024, the petitioner was granted interim bail which is continuing till date.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount corresponding to value of the vehicle in question stands paid.

¶22

Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 does not dispute this fact and submits that no settlement has yet taken place and opposes the bail for the reasons of interest part on

¶23

Sonia Puri delay payment. He further submits that he has all the rights to ask for fair investigation 2024.09.06 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

¶25

CRM-M-22876-2024

¶26

and to speed up the prosecution.

¶27

Counsel for the State opposes the bail but does not refute the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

Given the nature of allegation and the fact that there is no allegation that petitioner did not join investigation or failed to appear before the investigator concerned or hamper the investigation. The amount involved in the present case has already been paid. As such, the petitioner is entitled for bail.

¶29

Given above, the present petition is allowed and interim order dated 22.07.2024 is made absolute. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

¶30

		(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE
05.09.2024
Sonia Puri
Whether speaking/reasoned:	Yes
Whether reportable:	No.

¶31

Sonia Puri 2024.09.06 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Siddharth Chaturvedi v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddharth Chaturvedi v. State of Haryana and Anr.

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

Gori Shankar Vs State of Haryana and Other

Raj Kumar Nagar Vs Brahampal

Manmohan Singh Vs State of Haryana and Another

Saloni and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Yashwant Singh Verma Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ranjit Kumar Alias Ghukka Vs State of Punjab and Others