Mr. Vimal Duggal, Mr. Pravin Kr. Pachauri and Mr. Nishant Kashyap, Advocates v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/02/2025 at 17:22:16 $~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 374/2025 AMIT KUMAR NARANG .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vimal Duggal, Mr. Pravin Kr. Pachauri and Mr. Nishant Kashyap, Advocates. versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State with Mr. Avanish Kumar, PS-Krishna Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 10.02.2025 CRL.M.A. 4086/2025 (for modification of order dated 31.1.2025) 1. Through the present application, the Petitioner seeks modification of the order dated 31st January, 2025 passed by this Court while disposing of the present petition. Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the fact recorded in paragraph No. 5 of the said order, is incorrect and the father of the Petitioner, Mr. Sudarshan Kumar Narang, cannot stand as the guarantee for all of the payments to be made by the Petitioner to the Complainant. Counsel further states that nonetheless, the Petitioner’s father is willing to make a part payment of INR 6 Lakhs. 2. In this regard, it is noted that the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 31st January, 2025, were purely on the basis of the parties’ willingness to settle the matter on the terms noted in the order which included the father of the Petitioner agreeing to stand as a guarantor for the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/02/2025 at 17:22:16 payment due from the Petitioner. It is for this purpose that this Court had taken the note of the broad terms of the settlement between the parties and accordingly, in paragraph 9(b) of the said order, observed as under: “(b) In light of the foregoing settlement between the parties, the Trial Court is requested to consider the Applicant’s regular bail expeditiously and consider granting interim relief, if any, on the date of surrender. The leniency prayed for by the Counsel for the Applicant shall be taken into account by the Trial Court on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, the documents on record, as well as the fact that the Applicant has agreed to settle the outstanding amount”. 3. However, today, the Counsel for the Petitioner urges that the Petitioner’s father gave no such assurance to settle all dues of the Petitioner. On the other hand, the Complainant, appearing in person, states that the assurances given by the Petitioner’s father, were a material consideration for him to agree to any settlement. He highlights that the Petitioner’s previous conduct has not been satisfactory as he has not honoured the commitment to make the requisite payments which form the subject matter of present dispute. The Complainant states that if the Petitioner is unable to give any assurance, there can be no settlement. 4. Therefore, in light of the above, since the Petitioner’s father is unwilling to stand as a guarantor for the Petitioner and the Complainant is not willing to accept the terms of the settlement in absence of such assurance, in the opinion of the Court, the entire foundation of the directions issued in the order dated 31st January, 2025, is no longer sustainable. 5. In light of the foregoing, instead of modifying the said order, the Court considers it appropriate to recall the order in its entirety. 6. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of with a direction that the order dated 31st January, 2025 be recalled. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/02/2025 at 17:22:16 BAIL APPLN. 374/2025 7. The present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231, read with Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732, seeks grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 158/2023 dated 19th March, 2023 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, registered at P.S. Krishna Nagar. Pursuant to the said FIR, a chargesheet has also been filed for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 411 and 120-B of IPC. 8. In the present application, the Petitioner submits that he had earlier approached the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail, however, the said request was declined vide order dated 4th January, 2025. 9. Furthermore, it is noted that on 14th May, 2023 the Applicant was arrested in relation to the present FIR and on the next day – i.e., 15th May, 2023, he was produced before the Trial Court. Furthermore, on 15th May, 2023, the Trial Court granted seven-day police remand of the Applicant, after which he was sent to judicial custody. 10. Thereafter, the Applicant filed multiple applications seeking interim bail, which request was ultimately allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 14th July, 2023 for a period of 10 days. The said interim bail was extended upto 31st October, 2023. On the said day, the Applicant had preferred another application seeking extension of interim bail, however, the Trial Court dismissed the said application and directed the Applicant to surrender before the concerned Jail Authorities within the next three working days. Pertinently, on the subsequent date when the Applicant had 1 “BNSS” 2 “CrPC” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/02/2025 at 17:22:16 still not surrendered before the Jail Authorities, the Trial Court initiated coercive action against the Applicant and issued Non-Bailable Warrants against him. Furthermore, he was also declared as a proclaimed offender by the Trial Court on 23rd January, 2023, for continued non appearance in the trial proceedings. 11. In light of the facts noted above, once the Applicant was arrested in relation to the FIR, he was enlarged on bail, which conditions he did not honour and was ultimately been declared a proclaimed offender, the present application under Section 482 of the BNSS seeking pre-arrest/ anticipatory bail is completely misconceived. 12. In light of the above, the present application is dismissed, along with pending application(s). SANJEEV NARULA, J FEBRUARY 10, 2025/nk 3 “IPC”