RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in complaint no. 10842 of 09.07.2012, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, titled as M/s Surya Pharmaceutical Limited v. Kshitij Pharmacia and another, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh dismissing anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner.
(2.) THIS Court while issuing notice of motion on 22.03.2013 passed the following order: - "Crl.M.No.18144 of 2013 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M -9589 of 2013 Contends that petitioner was declared proclaimed offender without effecting any service upon him. It is further submitted that he is ready to make payment of the cheque amount to the complainant and that he already got prepared bank draft for Rs.5,40,470/ - in favour of respondent -complainant. Notice of motion to the respondents for 13.5.2013. On the request of petitioner, respondent no.2 is permitted to be served through his counsel in the trial Court. However, in the meantime, if petitioner appears before learned trial Court within two weeks from today and applies for bail, learned trial Court is directed to release him on interim bail subject to any conditions that may deem to be imposed by it and subject to his making payment of amount of the cheque to the respondent - complainant." It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner that he has already appeared before learned trial court on 01.04.2013 pursuant to said order and admitted to interim bail. Certified copy of order dated 01.04.2013 has also been placed on record. It is further stated by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner undertakes to appear before learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing and face trial. He has also contended that he has already deposited bank draft for Rs.5,40,470/ - in the name of complainant with the trial court for being paid to complainant. The factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent -U.T. 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.
(3.) HENCE , in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Manu Jain is accepted and order dated 22.03.2013 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to any conditions that may deem to be imposed by learned trial Court. Learned trial court is directed to deliver the draft for Rs.5,40,470/ - deposited by the petitioner to respondent no.2 -complainant. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.;