Varun Pasricha v. State (GNCT of Delhi)

Delhi High Court · 31 Jan 2019 · 2019:DHC:662
Sunil Gaur
BAIL APPLN. 2047/2018
2019:DHC:662
criminal bail_granted

AI Summary

Pre-arrest bail was granted to the petitioner in a criminal case involving cheating and breach of trust based on a compromise deed, subject to bail conditions and adherence to the settlement terms.

Full Text
Translation output
BAIL APPLN. 2047/2018
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: January 31, 2019
BAIL APPLN. 2047/2018
VARUN PASRICHA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Ms. Rosemary Raju, Ms. Aishwarya and
Ms. Upasna Goel, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Bharat Singh Mr. Vivek Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate for complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 399/2017, under
Sections 420/406/34 of IPC, registered at police station Okhla Industrial
Area, Delhi.
Parties were referred to mediation but mediation failed. However with the intervention of learned counsel for the parties now, a compromise has been effected. Copy of Compromise Deed of 23rd January, 2019 has been placed on record by petitioner’s counsel.
Learned senior counsel appears on behalf of complainant and submits that in terms of aforesaid Compromise Deed of 23rd January, 2019:DHC:662
BAIL APPLN. 2047/2018
2019, the first instalment has been paid and the second instalment is payable in March, 2019 and the third and final instalment is payable in
May, 2019 and post dated cheques for the entire settlement amount has been already given to complainant.
In view of the aforesaid, without commenting upon merits of the case, it is directed that in the event of arrest, petitioner be admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of `10,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer.
It is made clear that in case the compromise arrived at between the parties is not adhered to by petitioner, then the State/complainant would be at liberty to get this order revoked.
The application is accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 31, 2019 v 2019:DHC:662
JUDGMENT