Full Text
9^ HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of hearing and Order: February 08, 2010 Ball Application No. 88/2008
R.P. Sharma Petitioner
Through: Counsel for the petitioner.
Prosecutor for State.
Bail Application No. 91/2008 Kamal Kishore Sharma ... Petitioner
Through: Counsel for the petitioner.
Through: Mr. R.N. Vats, Additional Public Prosecutor for State.
JUDGMENT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may No be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest? Bail Application Nos. 88 & 91 of2008 Page 1 2010:DHC:7840 0^ SUNIL GAUR. I.
1. The above captioned two petitions arise out of FIR IMo. 277 of 2007, under Section 420/34 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Delhi. Initially order passed in these two petitions takes note of the facts of this case and is quite detailed one. Interim protection was granted to the petitioners in these two petitions, as an amicable settlement of the disputes herein was principally arrived at by the petitioners as well as by the first-informant of the FIR In question. Status Report also takes note of the fact that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties, as per the iviemorandums of Understanding of 8'" February, 2008 and V October, 2008, respectively.
2. In terms of the aforesaid Memorandums of Understanding, substantial payment has been made by the petitioners. This is confirmed by learned Counsel for the complainant/ first-informant. Counsel for the petitioners has undertaken before this court that on or before 31- March, 2010, the entire outstanding amount as per the Memorandum of Understanding, would be cleared by the petitioners. Page 2 Petitioners are on interim pre-arrest bail since February, 2008, and it is not the case of the respondent/ complainant that petitioner/ accused have misused this interim pre-arrest bail concession granted to them by this Court.
3. Without commenting on the merits of this case, interim order of 4'^ February, 2008, is made absolute. In the event of arrest, petitioners- R.P. Sharma & Kamal Kishore Sharma, be admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rupees thirty thousand each with one Surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. Petitioners are directed to abide by the conditions prescribed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and in case they fail to honour the Memorandum of Understanding, then the State would be at liberty to get this order revoked.
4. With directions, as aforesaid, these two petitions and pending application, if any, stand disposed of.
5. Copy of this order be given dasti to both sides. February 08, 2010 rs Gaur, J. BailApplication Nos. 88&91 of2008 Page 3