IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 6169 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: April 1, 2011. Gaurav Chopra. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Punjab. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. D.S.Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Kavita Arora, D.A.G., Punjab. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CRM No.17553 of 2011 Requests for placing on record affidavit of complainant –Vikrant Arora. The same is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. CRM stands disposed of. CRM No.M6169 of 2010 The present petition has been filed for regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.33 dated 25.05.2010, under CRM No.M-6169 of 2010 Sections 420/467/468/471/201/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station ‘D’ Division, Amritsar, District Amritsar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record including impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide which application of regular bail filed by petitioner-accused, was dismissed. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even as per the case of complainant, petitioner was an employee of complainant and that dispute was regarding payment of money on the allegation that petitioner had embezzled some amount of complainant’s business concern by forging some documents including cheques and that however, dispute has since been amicably settled with complainant. It is further contended that on similar facts co-accused filed a petition for quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise and FIR qua co-accused has already been quashed by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.11.2010 passed in CRM No.M-30295 of 2010, Annexure P5. It is further contended that petitioner has been continuing in custody since 26.05.2010 and that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as even charge has not been framed so far. Complainant has also come present and admitted the factum of compromise. Investigating Officer has also come present and he has identified the complainant. These facts have not been disputed by learned counsel for the State. 2 CRM No.M-6169 of 2010 There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on merits, the instant application for regular bail filed on behalf of Gaurav Chopra is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Amritsar. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) April 1, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3