Regular bail sought in a cheating FIR after the petitioner and complainant effected a compromise; the petitioner had been in custody for over five months and the case was triable by Magistrate. The State opposed bail citing two similar cases. The Court granted bail without commenting on the merits or legality of the compromise.
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.
2024:PHHC:031751
[236+108] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-9573-2024 in/and CRM-M-2697-2024
Date of Decision : 05.03.2024
Satinder Kumar …Petitioner
versus
State of UT, Chandigarh ….Respondent
Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present : Mr. A.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Manish Bansal, PP, UT, Chandigarh with Mr. Navjit Singh, Advocate. ***
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
CRM-9573-2024
This application is moved by the petitioner to place on record copy of compromise (Annexure P-XI).
Memo of appearance has been filed on behalf of the complainant-Mohender Singh Narwal.
Learned counsel for the complainant has no objection to take on record the compromise. He also concedes the factum of compromise.
Application is allowed. Compromise (Annexure P-XI) is taken on record.
CRM-M-2697-2024
[1] By way of this petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., petitioner is seeking regular bail in case FIR No.16 dated 03.02.2022 under Section 420 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Sector 3
(North), Chandigarh.
RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.03.06 06:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-9573-2024 in/and -2CRM-M-2697-2024
[2] Custody Certificate dated 05.03.2024 has been filed in Court today. The same is taken on record.
[3] Learned counsel contends that matter is triable by Magistrate; that petitioner is in custody for the last more than 05 months; that matter has since been compromised amongst the parties, so he be allowed bail.
[4] Though counsel for the complainant has stated that he has no objection in granting the bail to the petitioner but learned State Counsel opposed the bail petition by pointed out that petitioner is involved in 02 more cases of similar nature.
[5] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in those cases also, compromise has been effected.
[6] Having regard to the compromise having been effected between the parties in the present case; that case is triable by the Magistrate; that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 05 months, as per custody certificate, no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner detained. As such, without commenting anything further on the merits of the case or anything regarding the legality of the compromise effected between the parties, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, on usual terms and conditions.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
JUDGE
05.03.2024
‘Rajneesh'
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
RAJNEESH SHARMA 2024.03.06 06:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be released on regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in a Section 420 IPC case where the parties have compromised and he has been in custody over five months?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Satinder Kumar
State of UT, Chandigarh
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
