SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Alowk Rustogi vs State Of Haryana on 4 December, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRL. MISC. No.M-38316 OF 2017
DATE OF DECISION : 4th DECEMBER, 2017

Alowk Rustogi
…. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
…. Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. B. CHAUDHARI

****

Present : Mr. R. S. Rai Senior Advocate with
Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mrs. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG Haryana.

Mr. Satyaveer Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

****

A. B. CHAUDHARI, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section

439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in FIR No.443 dated 30.04.2016

registered under Sections 420 406 IPC at Police Station Sadar,

Gurugram.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

was arrested on 03.06.2016 and is in jail since then. He further submitted

that the maximum sentence provided by Section 406 IPC is 3 years,

whereas the petitioner has completed half of the said sentence. In any

case according to him, the trial will take its own time and the trial is

being conducted before the Magistrate, the petitioner cannot be put as

1 of 3
09-12-2017 07:20:32 :::
CRL. MISC. No.M-38316 OF 2017

-2-

under trial ad infinitum as the petitioner is ready to abide by such

condition as would be imposed.

Per contra learned counsel for the State as well as the

complainant vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to

the petitioner. They contended that offence under Section 420 IPC has

also been added in the FIR for which the sentence is on higher side.

They submitted that petitioner is the main accused who has withdrawn

huge amounts from the company’s accounts and not only that there are

number of other cases against the petitioner. In that view the regular bail

should not be granted to him.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, I find that

this Court is required to decide each and every petition for regular bail on

the basis of allegations made in the FIR in question. It may be that the

petitioner has several FIRs against him but then each case will have to be

examined on the facts of each case. In the present case, I find that the

petitioner has spent almost half of the sentence in jail and the offence is

triable by the Magistrate who would be able to impose sentence of

maximum three years. Assuming the offence under Section 420 IPC has

also been added and there is a conviction, even then no useful purpose

will be served in continuing the detention of the petitioner as under trial,

rather with certain stringent conditions, the petitioner should be released

on regular bail. In that view of the matter, I make the following order:

ORDER

(i) CRL. MISC. No.M-38316 OF 2017 is allowed.

2 of 3
09-12-2017 07:20:33 :::
CRL. MISC. No.M-38316 OF 2017

-3-

(ii) Bail to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM/Duty

Magistrate.

(iii) The petitioner to surrender his passport with the trial Court,

if he possesses the same.

(iv) The petitioner shall report to the concerned Police Station on

every Monday, Wednesday and Saturday between 11am to

4pm. The police shall keep surveillance on the petitioner.

(v) The petitioner would file an undertaking to the trial Court

that he will not commit the same or any other kind of

offence in future.

(vi) The petitioner shall not tamper, influence and threaten the

prosecution witnesses and complainant as well.

(vii) The petitioner is restrained from dealing with the affairs of

company and his properties. If it is found that he makes any

endeavour to deal with the properties of the company of

himself the police/complainant would be at liberty to move

an application for cancellation of the regular bail.

It is clarified that this order will not be treated as precedent

in other FIRs filed against the petitioner.

4th DECEMBER, 2017 (A. B. CHAUDHARI)
‘raj’ JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No

Whether Reportable: Yes No

3 of 3
09-12-2017 07:20:33 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation