Pushpa Singhal v. State (Govt. Of NCT Delhi) & ORS

$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 409/2019 CRL.M.A. 7331/2019 PUSHPA SINGHAL .....Petitioner Through:

Ms. Pallavi S. Kansal, Mr. Saurabh 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.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 12.12.2024 1.

This petition has been filed impugning order dated 28th 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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 12:30:09

22nd 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 a "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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 12:30:09