Manoj Kumar Sengar Vs State of Haryana

The instant petition has bee n filed under Section 483 of B N SS, 2023 (ea r lier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for g r ant of regular bail to the petitio n er, during th e pendency of trial, who has be e n booked in a criminal case ari s ing

¶14

out of Fir s t Information Report, as detail e d here-under:-

¶15

Name of	FIR	Date	Section(s)	Police	District
Petitioner( s)	No.			Station
Manoj Ku Sengar mar	200	02.05.2022	406, 420 I Section 3 of PC, 1860 and HPIDFE Act	Model Town Rewari	Rewari

¶16

On hearing some argument s , the Co-ordinate Bench rele a sed

¶17

the petiti o ner on interim bail vide order 0 7 .05.2025 which reads as under:-

¶18

“ Petitioner has filed the p resent 2nd petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR No.200, dated 02.05.2022, u n der Sections 406 & 420 IPC and S ection 3 of HPIDFE, Act registere d at Police Station Model Town, Re w ari, District Rewari. First petition was dismissed as withdrawn with li b erty to file fresh bail application w ith better particulars.

¶19

ANIL KUMAR 2025.11.06 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M-2732-2025 - 2 -

¶21

Learned counsel for the p etitioner submits that the petitioner has returned an amount of Rs.60 lak h s out of the amount in dispute. Fur t her, brother of the petitioner has also paid an amount of Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant yesterday. Learned c ounsel for the petitioner submits tha t the petitioner is ready and willing t o settle the dispute amicably with the complainant.

¶22

Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advoc a te has put in appearance on behalf o f the complainant and filed his vakala t nama which is taken on record. Reg i stry is directed to tag the same at th e appropriate place. He submits that the complainant is not averse to t h e amicable settlement of the dis p ute, however, the petitioner be subje c ted to certain conditions, in case, h e is released on interim bail.

¶23

Per contra, learned State c ounsel opposes the prayer made b y the petitioner on the ground that t h ere are serious allegations against the petitioner.

¶24

Keeping in view the fact t h at an amount of Rs.65 lakhs has alr e ady been paid to the complainant by t he petitioner, the petitioner is ordered to be released on interim bail for a period of three months on furnishin g of bail/surety bond to the satisfa c tion of the learned trial Court/Il l aqa Magistrate.

¶25

List on 20.08.2025.

¶26

The petitioner is directed t o place on record the settlement dee d on the next date of hearing. ”

¶27

Learned counsel for the pet i tioner submits that apart from the amount o f ₹65 lakhs already paid, an a d ditional sum of ₹24 lakhs on o ne occasion and ₹2 lakhs on another occ a sion have also been paid to the responde n t party, namely, the complaina n t/victims — Smt. Bimla Devi, Sh. Indermal and Sh. Birender Singh. Th u s, total sum of ₹91 Lakhs have already b een paid out of the dispute a m ount i.e. ₹2,85,74,585/-. Lear n ed counsel f u rther submits that he is in the p rocess of arranging the amount for an amica b le settlement of the dispute v i s-à-vis all the victims. He fur t her submits t hat including the petitioner, t h ere are a total of eight acc u sed persons, and the aforesaid amount of ₹91 lakhs has been paid by the petitione r and his wife, namely, Smt. R aj eshwari Sengar (co-accused). I t is further s u bmitted that the offences in q u estion are triable by the Cour t of

¶28

ANIL KUMAR 2025.11.06 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CRM-M-2732-2025 - 3 -

¶30

learned M agistrate, and the petitioner, ha v ing remained in custody for a b out one year , is not required to be detain e d any longer for any meanin g ful purpose. A ccordingly, he prays for gran t of regular bail by confirming the interim b a il order dated 07.05.2025. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as lear n ed counsel fo r the complainant submit and admit that an amount of ₹91 la k hs has been r eceived by the victim, Smt. Bi m la Devi, who is being represe n ted by learne d counsel Mr. Rahul Yadav.

¶31

In view of the fact that, i n compliance with the order d a ted 07.05.20 2 5, the total amount of ₹91 lakh s has been paid by the petitione r to the conc e rned victims, though the gri e vance of the complainant sta n ds partially r edressed, this Court cannot i g nore the aspect that the pri m ary offences are triable by the Court of lea r ned Magistrate and the maxi m um sentence a wardable under Section 3 of t h e HPIDFE Act is seven years. T he petitione r has already undergone custody for a period of about one year a nd nine mo n ths, and therefore, his furt h er detention would not achieve meaning fu l purpose. Consequently, the i n terim bail order dated 07.05.2 0 25 is hereby confirmed.

¶32

Consequently, the prayer made in the present petitio n is allowed. I t is clarified that the petitione r shall furnish fresh bail bonds a nd surety b o nds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Chief Judi c ial Magistra t e/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magis t rate concerned.

¶33

Needless to observe that t h e petitioner shall not extend a ny

¶34

ANIL KUMAR 2025.11.06 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

CRM-M-2732-2025 - 4 -

¶36

threat an d shall not influence any prosec u tion witness in any manner dire c tly or indire c tly.

¶37

Any of the discussion done and recorded here above, shall not be constr u ed as an expression of opinion on the facts of the case. Theref o re, trial Cou r t is expected to decide the case by taking an independent view , on the basis of evidence available on reco r d, as expeditiously as possible, in accordan c e with law.

¶38

�� Petition stands disposed of . Misc. application(s), if any, a lso stand disposed of.

¶39

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE November 04, 2025 anil Whether s p eaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether R e portable: Yes/No

¶40

ANIL KUMAR 2025.11.06 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Manoj Kumar Sengar v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Sengar 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

Vijay Pal Vs State of Punjab

Balbir Singh Vs Pardeep Singh

Dharminder Alias Tirath Ram Fouji and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Prem Kumar Vs Manoj Kumar

Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Shivam Kashyap Alias Shivam Kayshap Vs State of Haryana