Varun Pasricha vs State (Gnct Of Delhi)
2019 Latest Caselaw 625 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW 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

                         ORDER

(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, 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