Ms. Preeti v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
The Delhi High Court vacated an interim bail order and dismissed the petition because the petitioner failed to deposit the directed amount of Rs. 10 lacs within the stipulated time.
What did the court decide?
Vacation of interim order and dismissal of the bail application.
What the court decided
$~1
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- BAIL APPLN. 2372/2018
| MS. PREETI | Through: | ..... Petitioner Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate. |
|---|---|---|
| Versus | ||
| STATE | ..... Respondent | |
| Through: | Mr. G.M. Farooqui, APP for State with SI Subhash Chand, PS-O.I.A, New Delhi. |
|
| Mr. Rajesh Manchanda, Advocate for complainant. |
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
O R D E R % 13.12.2018
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 16.10.2018 has been duly conveyed to the petitioner. She has been advised to comply with the order, failing which interim protection could well be vacated. He states that he made every endeavour to contact the petitioner but has received no response.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the petitioner was required to deposit an amount of Rs. 10 lacs within two weeks. He submits that despite a lapse of more than eight weeks, the said amount has not been deposited. The petitioner is enjoying liberty granted by this Court. He submits that the petitioner is in breach of the specific condition, and she should not be permitted to abuse the process of law.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Ms. Preeti
- respondent
State
Coram
Najmi Wazri
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court