This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
550/2013 (stay) VINAY KUMAR JAIN ..... Petitioner Through Mr. M.S. Ahluwalia, Adv.
versus STATE ..... Respondent Through Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for the State with SI Rajvir Singh, EOW. Dr. L.S. Chaudhary, Adv. for the complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER 17.01.2013 The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 30th October, 2012 passed by the learned ACMM granting interim bail to the Petitioner, subject to payment of Rs.17.75 lakhs to the complainant as a condition precedent for grant of interim bail. This order was challenged by the Petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision, which revision was dismissed by order dated 2nd January, 2013 on the ground that the apprehension of the revisionist that the complainant would run away with the amount was not well founded. It was further held that since the Petitioner had admitted having taken amount of Rs.25 lakhs from the complainant along with three other persons on the pretext
2013 subject to his depositing a sum of Rs. Petition and application are disposed of. In such a situation.75 lakhs to the complainant. The Petitioner has already made payment of Rs. 2013. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2012 is modified to the extent that the Petitioner is admitted on interim bail till 15th February. Order dasti. It may be noted that there is no admission of the Petitioner that Rs. J .1 lakhs with one surety of the like amount.75 lakhs i.12.25 lakhs and the contention of the Petitioner is that the complainant has forged the remaining receipts to show the amount to be Rs. MUKTA GUPTA. The Petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court on 22nd January.that he was the attorney of the actual owner which he was not and if the amount is released to the complainant.71 lakhs have been taken from the complainant. Needless to say that the Petitioner would join the investigation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer and will not leave the Country without prior permission of the learned Trial Court.71 lakhs.e. directing the petitioner to make payment of Rs.12. Interest of justice would be met if the balance amount of Rs.17. It may be noted that the Petitioner has already deposited his passport with the Investigating Officer. 25% of the total amount to the complainant at this stage would be wholly unjustified.17. the amount admitted by the Petitioner and three other co-accused is Rs. the same can be recovered back as the complainant has been executing an indemnity bond. The order dated 30th October.75 lakhs with the Trial Court by way of demand draft in the name of learned Trial Court/learned ACMM and on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs out of Rs. In the present case.75 lakhs is deposited with the Trial Court by way of bank draft in the name of learned Trial Court/learned ACMM without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to final outcome of the investigation carried on regarding the alleged forgery of the receipts prepared.
M.JANUARY 17. 3 of 3 . 2013 ?vkm? Crl. No.146/2013 Page No.C.