CRL.REV.P./409/2019 of PUSHPA SINGHAL Vs STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) & ORS
Parties
- + CRL.REV.P. 409/2019 CRL.M.A. 7331/2019 PUSHPA SINGHAL PUSHPA SINGHAL (PETITIONER)
- STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) & ORS (RESPONDENT)
Cites (0 resolved of 1 detected)
1 case citation detected in this judgment's own text, but none resolved to a judgment page in this build yet.
Statutes cited (1)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 409/2019 CRL.M.A. 7331/2019 PUSHPA SINGHAL PUSHPA SINGHAL
.....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Pallavi S. Kansal, Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Mr. Raghav Vij & Mr. Pratham Malik, Advocates. Kansal, Mr. Raghav Vij & Mr. Pratham Malik, Advocates.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) & ORS
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for State along with Insp. Sunil Kr. Sharma, PS: DIU/Rohini & SI Naveen Kumar, PS: Mehrauli. Mr. Suhail Shah, and Satish Prakash Gupta Advocates for R-3. State along with Insp. Sunil Kr. Sharma, PS: DIU/Rohini & SI Naveen Kumar, PS: Mehrauli. Mr. Suhail Shah, and Satish Prakash Gupta Advocates for R-3.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
O R R12.12.2024
This petition has been filed impugning order dated 28[th] January, 2019,
passed by Additional Sessions Judge-03, North West Delhi, dismissing the application for cancellation of bail of the respondent No.3/accused in FIR No.296/2016 registered at P.S. North Rohini, Delhi, under Sections 420/120B of IPC.
2.The order was passed in the second application moved for cancellation of bail alleging that the accused was misusing the liberty granted to him and violated the terms and conditions of the bail order dated
22[nd] November, 2016 (extending threats to the petitioner).
3.The impugned order noted that ever since passing of the bail order no complaint had been made against the accused having threatening the complainant or her family members. Besides, the conditions in the bail order were noted to have been satisfied, in that, an amount of Rs. 15 lacs had been received by the petitioner.
4.Additionally, it is stated by the counsel for the accused that in compliance of bail conditions, Rs.12 lacs has also been deposited by way of an FDR before the Trial Court. As regards the issue of vacation of the property, the complainant has rights to stay in the property for about 2-3 years before it was taken over by the bank who had mortgage on the said property. Accordingly, the complainant had “reasonable” period in the property, as per bail order.
5.The Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
6.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
7.Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J
DECEMBER 12, 2024/ak