Sanjeev Gullo vs State Of U.T. on 10 March, 2009

Criminal Misc. No. M-34302 of 2008                                     1




      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.


                  Criminal Misc. No. M-34302 of 2008

                        Date of Decision: 10.3.2009


Sanjeev Gullo
                                                              ...Petitioner
                                  Versus
State of U.T., Chandigarh
                                                            ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

Present: None for the petitioner.

          Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate
          for the respondent-U.T. Chandigarh.

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

On 24.12.2008, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed

the following order:-

“The petitioner was the agent of the

complainant and it is alleged that during his

employment he embezzled a sum of Rs.1,70,000/-.

To the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner

has submitted that during his employment the

complainant did not pay him his emoluments and the

present FIR is the counter-blast.

Notice of motion for 10.03.2009.

in the meanwhile, it is directed that in the

event of arrest of the petitioner he shall be released

on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting
Criminal Misc. No. M-34302 of 2008 2

Officer, subject to the following conditions:-

iv) that the petitioner shall make himself

available for interrogation by a police

officer as and when required;

v) that the petitioner shall not directly or

indirectly make any inducement, threat or

promise to any person acquainted with the

facts of the case so as to dissuade them

from disclosing such facts to the Court or

to any police officer;

vi) that the petitioner shall not leave India

without the previous permission of the

Court”.

Mr. Sharma, on instructions of Tilak Raj, Assistant Sub

Inspector, states that compromise has been arrived between the parties

and the petitioner has joined the investigation. He further states that no

custodial interrogation is required.

For the reasons stated in the order dated 24.12.2008 and

statement made by counsel for the State, interim pre-arrest bail granted

to the petitioner is affirmed till filing of the report under Section 173

Cr.P.C. On submission of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. petitioner

shall furnish regular bail-bonds to the Court concerned.

With these observations, present petition is disposed off.

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
March 10, 2009
“DK”