High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 01 P&H CK 0226

Ajay Kumar vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 18 January 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-33316 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 361 words

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—The present petition has been filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case arising out of FIR No. 296 dated 5.6.2011 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak under Sections 420, 406 IPC.

2.

Petitioner is stated to be a partner of M/s Sandhu Security Service and DKP Associates. Complaint against the petitioner is that payment towards Employees Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance etc. was deducted from the salaries of the employees but was not deposited with the prescribed authorities.

3.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire amount which was deducted from the salaries of the employees has been deposited with the Employees State Insurance Corporation etc., therefore, petitioner is no longer required by the investigating agency as the evidence, if any, is based upon documents.

4.

Counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Atam Parkash, Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak has stated that the petitioner has deposited Rs. 50 lacs and Rs. 62,132/- still remains to be deposited. He further stated that petitioner has joined the investigation and is no longer required by the investigating agency.

5.

Counsel for the petitioner has stated that it is a matter of calculation and if any amount is due, the petitioner will also deposit the same.

6.

Taking into consideration that the petitioner has deposited almost the entire amount, except a little balance amount, which remains to be deposited, this Court is of the view that petitioner is entitled to the benefit of pre-arrest bail, especially when the investigating agency no longer requires the petitioner for interrogation.

7.

Hence, the present petition is accepted and pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner by a Co-ordinate Bench on 4.11.2011 is made absolute. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer till filing of report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the petitioner shall be permitted to furnish regular bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. He shall continue to appear before the Arresting/Investigating Officer as and when called for. He shall abide by the conditions as specified u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.