Suresh Kumar Luthra vs. U.T. Chandigarh

Facts

The petitioner, Suresh Kumar Luthra, sought regular bail in FIR No. 79 dated 18.07.2023, registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 406 and 420, at Police Station Cyber Crime, Chandigarh. The FIR was based on a complaint by Balwinder Kaur, proprietor of M/s Laksh Enterprises, who alleged that after dispatching books worth Rs. 3.50 lakhs to a firm named Sai Enterprises based on a phone call and a provided GST number, she did not receive payment. Investigations revealed the GST number belonged to a firm in Lucknow. The petitioner has been in custody since 20.07.2023.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. It noted that the petitioner has been in custody since 20.07.2023. Crucially, the Court acknowledged that a compromise has been effected between the parties, evidenced by the filing of CRM-M-44521-2023 for quashing the FIR on the basis of this compromise, with notice having been issued for its hearing on 19.10.2023. In light of this compromise, the Court found that further incarceration of the petitioner was not required. The Court explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case. The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of regular bail in light of a compromise reached with the complainant? (Question of law and fact, concerning Sections 439 Cr.P.C. and principles of bail). Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that a compromise has been reached with the complainant, who has received full and final settlement of Rs. 3,47,500/-. A petition for quashing the FIR based on this compromise (CRM-M-44521-2023) has been filed and is listed for hearing. Given this compromise and his period of custody since 20.07.2023, the petitioner argued he is entitled to bail. Respondent's argument: The respondent (U.T. Chandigarh) argued that the petitioner is a habitual offender with three other cases registered against him, in two of which he has been declared a proclaimed offender. Additionally, multiple cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act are pending against him, making him disentitled to bail. However, the respondent did not dispute the fact that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties.