Sachin Verma Vs State of Haryana

‘By way of present petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR (Annexure P-1) as under: -

¶15

FIR No. Dated Sections Police Station

¶16

*FIR*	*Dated*	*Sections*	*Police Station*
*No.*
203	4.9.2024	420 and 120-B of	Sector 14, Panchkula
		IPC	District Panchkula

¶17

2. It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He contends that the petitioner has not committed any crime and in fact the amount received by the petitioner in his account was on account of transaction with the complainant with the name of the builder company and the amount was immediately transferred by the petitioner in the account of the concerned official of the company, namely Harsimran Kaur Sachdeva, who happened to be the co-accused of the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner has not cheated the complainant in any manner nor he is the beneficiary of any such transaction. He contends that

¶18

ASHWANI KUMAR 2025.09.24 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRm-m No.14003 of 2025 -2-

¶20

the petitioner is ready to deposit the amount in question in the Court to show his bona fide. He contends that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. Hence, the instant petition.

¶21

3. Notice of motion.

¶22

4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Praveen Bhadu AAG, Haryana, present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the State-respondent and prays for time to file the status report/reply in the matter.

¶23

5. Adjourned to 14.05.2025.

¶24

6. Needful be done well before the date fixed with an advance copy to the counsel opposite.

¶25

7. In the meanwhile, arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed, till the next date of hearing.

¶26

8. Investigating Officer (concerned) to remain present in Court along with relevant records on the date fixed.’

¶27

2.

¶28

On 8.9.2025, the following order was passed:

¶29

‘Complainant (appearing through V.C.) has been identified by the Investigating Officer, SI Karnail Singh.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the complainant (who appears in person through V.C.) are ad idem that there may be chances of amicable settlement.

¶31

In view of the above, the parties are directed to appear before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court on 12.09.2025 under “Special Mediation Drive-Mediation ‘For the Nation”. The complainant is at liberty to appear through V.C.

¶32

Put up on 19.09.2025 alongwith report of the Mediator.

¶33

Interim order to continue.

¶34

Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case(s).’

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner as also the complainantTaruna Mishra (who appears in person through VC and has been identified by Investigating Officer-SI Karnail Singh) submits that they have settled the dispute amicably, terms whereof have been reduced into writing vide settlement/compromise deed dated 15.9.2025 before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.

¶36

ASHWANI KUMAR 2025.09.24 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

CRm-m No.14003 of 2025 -3-

¶38

3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over a demand draft bearing No.294820 dated 26.8.2025 for an amount of ₹3,38,890/- to the Investigating Officer of the case, who shall ensure that the same is transmitted onwards to the complainant or her authorised person. Photocopy of the demand draft is placed on record.

¶39

In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed. The interim order dated 21.4.2025, passed by this Court is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS.

¶40

This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence.

¶41

Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioner violates any condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS or upon showing any other sufficient cause.

¶42

Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

¶43

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

¶44

24.9.2025

¶45

Ashwanii

¶46

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶47

ASHWANI KUMAR 2025.09.24 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sachin Verma v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Verma v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Vs State of Haryana

Vijay Vs State of Haryana

Jaspal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jagdish Vs Sham Lal

Harsimran Kaur Sachdeva Vs State of Haryana

Uttam Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others