A 9^ HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI Date of hearing and Order: February 08, 2010 + Ball Application No. 88/2008 % R.P. Sharma Petitioner Through: Counsel for the petitioner. versus . The State of NCT of Delhi ... Respondent ^ Through: Mr. R.N. Vats, AdditionalPublic Prosecutor for State. Bail Application No. 91/2008 % Kamal Kishore Sharma ... Petitioner Through: Counsel for the petitioner. versus The State of NCT of Delhi ... Respondent Through: Mr. R.N. Vats, Additional Public Prosecutor for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may No be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest? Bail Application Nos. 88 & 91 of2008 Page 1 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 0^ SUNIL GAUR. I. 1. The above captioned two petitionsarise out of FIR IMo. 277 of 2007, under Section 420/34 of the IPC, registeredat Police Station Civil Lines, Delhi. Initiallyorder passed in these two petitionstakes note of the facts of this case and is quite detailedone. Interim protectionwas grantedto the petitioners in these two petitions, as an amicable settlement of the disputesherein was principallyarrivedat by the petitionersas well as by the first-informantof the FIR In question. Status Report also takes note of the fact that a settlementhas been arrived at between the parties, as per the iviemorandumsof Understandingof 8'" February, 2008 and V October, 2008, respectively. 2. In terms of the aforesaid Memorandums of Understanding,substantial payment has been made by the petitioners. This is confirmed by learned Counsel for the complainant/first-informant.Counsel for the petitioners has undertaken before this court that on or before 31- March, 2010, the entireoutstandingamountas per the Memorandum of Understanding, would be cleared by the petitioners. Page 2 Petitioners are on interim pre-arrest bail since February, 2008, and it is not the case of the respondent/ complainant that petitioner/ accused have misused this interim pre-arrest bail concession granted to them by this Court. 3. Without commenting on the merits of this case, interim order of 4'^ February, 2008, is made absolute. In the event of arrest, petitioners- R.P. Sharma & Kamal Kishore Sharma, be admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rupees thirty thousand each with one Surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. Petitioners are directed to abide by the conditions prescribed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and in case they fail to honour the Memorandum of Understanding, then the State would be at liberty to get this order revoked. 4. With directions, as aforesaid, these two petitions and pending application, if any, stand disposed of. 5. Copy of this order be given dasti to both sides. February 08, 2010 rs Gaur, J. BailApplicationNos. 88&91 of2008 Page3