Manoj Kum oj Kumar Sengar ioner v. State of Ha Haryana ndent
Case Details
CRM-M-2732-20 2025 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN IN AT CHANDIG F PUNJAB AND HARYANA NDIGARH 223 CRM-M-2732-202 Decided on : 04.11.202 2025 11.2025 Manoj Kum oj Kumar Sengar ioner . . . Petitioner ersus Versus State of Ha Haryana ndent . . . Respondent CORAM: AM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SA CE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: SENT: Mr. Sajjan Singh, Advocate, fo cate, for the petitioner.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Kanwar Sanjeev Kumar, A mar, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocate, fo cate, for the complainant. **** SANJAY V JAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1. The instant petition has been f been filed under Section 483 of BNS f BNSS, 2023 (earli (earlier Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for gran or grant of regular bail to the petitione titioner, during the p g the pendency of trial, who has been s been booked in a criminal case arisin arising out of First f First Information Report, as detailed tailed here-under:- Name of ner(s) Petitioner(s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Manoj Kum Sengar j Kumar 200 02.05.2022 406, 420 IP Section 3 of H 3 of HPIDFE Act IPC, 1860 and District Rewari Police Station Model Town Rewari 2. On hearing some arguments, ents, the Co-ordinate Bench release released the petition etitioner on interim bail vide order 07. - er 07.05.2025 which reads as under:- “ Petitioner has filed the pr Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in Sections 406 & 420 IPC and Sec Police Station Model Town, Rewa dismissed as withdrawn with libe better particulars. the present 2nd petition under Section 4 bail in FIR No.200, dated 02.05.2022, und nd Section 3 of HPIDFE, Act registered , Rewari, District Rewari. First petition w th liberty to file fresh bail application wi tion 439 2, under stered at tion was ion with ANIL KUMAR 2025.11.06 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2732-20 2025 - 2 - Learned counsel for the pe returned an amount of Rs.60 lakhs brother of the petitioner has also complainant yesterday. Learned co petitioner is ready and willing to complainant. the petitioner submits that the petitioner h lakhs out of the amount in dispute. Furthe s also paid an amount of Rs.5 lakhs to t ed counsel for the petitioner submits that t ing to settle the dispute amicably with t oner has Further, s to the that the with the Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocate complainant and filed his vakalatna is directed to tag the same at the complainant is not averse to the however, the petitioner be subject released on interim bail. vocate has put in appearance on behalf of t kalatnama which is taken on record. Regist at the appropriate place. He submits that t to the amicable settlement of the dispu ubjected to certain conditions, in case, he lf of the Registry that the dispute, se, he is Per contra, learned State co petitioner on the ground that the petitioner. tate counsel opposes the prayer made by t at there are serious allegations against t e by the inst the Keeping in view the fact tha been paid to the complainant by th be released on interim bail for a p bail/surety bond to the satisfact Magistrate. act that an amount of Rs.65 lakhs has alrea t by the petitioner, the petitioner is ordered or a period of three months on furnishing tisfaction of the learned trial Court/Illa s already rdered to shing of rt/Illaqa List on 20.08.2025. The petitioner is directed to ted to place on record the settlement deed deed on the next date of hearing.” 3. Learned counsel for the petiti petitioner submits that apart from th rom the amount of nt of ₹65 lakhs already paid, an add an additional sum of ₹24 lakhs on on on one occasion a sion and ₹2 lakhs on another occas occasion have also been paid to th to the respondent ndent party, namely, the complainant ainant/victims — Smt. Bimla Devi, S evi, Sh. Indermal a rmal and Sh. Birender Singh. Thus Thus, total sum of ₹91 Lakhs hav hs have already bee dy been paid out of the dispute amo te amount i.e. ₹2,85,74,585/-. Learne Learned counsel fur sel further submits that he is in the pro the process of arranging the amount fo ount for an amicabl micable settlement of the dispute vis vis-à-vis all the victims. He furth further submits th its that including the petitioner, the er, there are a total of eight accuse accused persons, an ns, and the aforesaid amount of of ₹91 lakhs has been paid by th by the petitioner a ioner and his wife, namely, Smt. Raje t. Rajeshwari Sengar (co-accused). It d). It is further sub er submitted that the offences in que in question are triable by the Court o ourt of ANIL KUMAR 2025.11.06 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2732-20 2025 - 3 - learned Ma ed Magistrate, and the petitioner, havi r, having remained in custody for abo or about one year, i year, is not required to be detained tained any longer for any meaningf aningful purpose. A ose. Accordingly, he prays for grant o grant of regular bail by confirming th ing the interim bail im bail order dated 07.05.2025. 4. On the other hand, learned S rned State counsel as well as learne learned counsel for sel for the complainant submit and ad and admit that an amount of ₹91 lakh 1 lakhs has been re een received by the victim, Smt. Bim t. Bimla Devi, who is being represente resented by learned arned counsel Mr. Rahul Yadav. 5. In view of the fact that, in c t, in compliance with the order date ated 07.05.2025 .2025, the total amount of ₹91 lakhs lakhs has been paid by the petitioner tioner to the concer oncerned victims, though the griev grievance of the complainant stand t stands partially re ally redressed, this Court cannot ign ot ignore the aspect that the primar primary offences ar ces are triable by the Court of learn learned Magistrate and the maximu aximum sentence aw nce awardable under Section 3 of the of the HPIDFE Act is seven years. Th ars. The petitioner h ioner has already undergone custody f tody for a period of about one year an ear and nine mont months, and therefore, his further further detention would not achie achieve meaningful ingful purpose. Consequently, the int the interim bail order dated 07.05.202 05.2025 is hereby co reby confirmed. 6. Consequently, the prayer m yer made in the present petition ition is allowed. It ed. It is clarified that the petitioner s ioner shall furnish fresh bail bonds an nds and surety bon y bonds to the satisfaction of the le the learned Trial Court/Chief Judici Judicial Magistrate/ istrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistra agistrate concerned. 7. ANIL KUMAR 2025.11.06 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Needless to observe that the at the petitioner shall not extend an end any CRM-M-2732-20 2025 - 4 - threat and s t and shall not influence any prosecuti secution witness in any manner direct directly or indirectl directly. 8. Any of the discussion done an one and recorded here above, shall n hall not be construe nstrued as an expression of opinion o nion on the facts of the case. Therefor erefore, trial Court Court is expected to decide the case b case by taking an independent view, o iew, on the basis o asis of evidence available on record, record, as expeditiously as possible, sible, in accordance rdance with law. (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3) (cid:3)
Decision
Petition stands disposed of. Misc. application(s), if any, als ny, also stand disposed of. ember 04, 2025 November anil (SANJAY VASHISTH JUDGE ISTH) Whether spe Whether Rep speaking/reasoned: Reportable: Yes/No Yes/No ANIL KUMAR 2025.11.06 14:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document