IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.01.2025 Siddharth Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present: Ms. Pallavi Babbar and Mr. Karambir, Advocates, for the petitioner.

Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Section/s

994 04.10.2018 Sirsa City, Sirsa 406 & 420 IPC GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of aforementioned FIR.

2. The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Kewal Krishan son of Gopi Chand (respondent No.2), who is a Commission Agent. The allegations in the FIR are broadly to the following effect:

“That allegation were made against all the accused in the present FIR for misappropriating Rs.34,45,265/- belonging to the complainant and other commission agents of New Grain Market, Sirsa with the allegations that in the year 2014-2015, Shakti Bhog Foods Company had purchased paddy Basmati through Dhian Singh purchaser from 55 firms of Sirsa Mandi and sent to Shakti Bhog Foods Company at Samana Bahu and Karnal and the said company made part payment and a sum of Rs.34,45,265/- is still due towards the said company but the said company did not make payment of the said amount nor issued any TDS form nor the same was deposited with the Income Tax Department and in this way, the company has cheated the complainant and other commission agents of the Mandi, Sirsa as well as sale-tax department.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter in fact pertains to settlement of accounts and as a matter of fact the same have now been duly settled and the matter stands virtually compromised. Learned counsel in this regard has drawn the attention of this Court to compromise deed annexed with the petition as Annexure P-5.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that having regard to the fact that a huge amount of more than 34 lakhs was misappropriated, no case for grant of bail is made out. Learned counsel has informed that as on date the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 2 years and stands involved in several other identical cases. Learned State counsel has, however, feigned ignorance about the factum of compromise.

5. Today, Mr. Kartik Verma, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant and has filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. Though he has endorsed the factum of compromise, but has informed that the matter stands formally compromised with 55 out of a total of 58 aggrieved parties and that the same is yet to be compromised qua the remaining 3, as they could not be located. 6. This Court has considered rival submissions.

7. Having regard to the nature of allegations and the fact that the matter is stated to have been compromised amongst the parties and while also noticing that the petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of about 2 years, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose as the conclusion of trial will take some time. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

30.01.2025 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL)

Vimal JUDGE