Dismissed

Prosecutrix through Mother v. the State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC16 Dec 2024CRL.M.C./3295/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court dismissed a petition under S. 439(2) CrPC seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the victim's paternal aunt. The court found no merit as the accused resides in Uttar Pradesh and no violation of bail conditions was alleged.

What did the court decide?

The petition praying for cancellation of anticipatory bail was dismissed.

Prosecutrix through Mother Vs the State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)… — Bail and Remand | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~29

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 3295/2021

¶4

PROSECUTRIX THROUGH MOTHER .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate (through V C)

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) & ANR.

¶7

.....Respondent

¶8

Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for State with SI Mahendra Patel Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for R-2

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN O R D E R

¶10

% 16.12.2024

¶11

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 (2) Cr. P.C. seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent no. 2 vide order dated 21.09.2021.

¶12

The respondent no. 2 is the paternal aunt of the victim. She was granted anticipatory bail by this court in connection with FIR No. 492/2020, on the premise that she is not a resident of Delhi. The respondent no.2 was also kept in column No. 12 of the chargesheet.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the only concern of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 2 should not visit the place where the child victim or the prosecutrix resides.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing respondent no. 2 submits that respondent

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 23/12/2024 at 12:07:18

¶17

no. 2 is residing in Uttar Pradesh whereas the prosecutrix is resident of Delhi, therefore, there is no occasion for respondent no.2 to visit the residence of child victim or the prosecutrix at Delhi.

¶18

It is also pointed out by the learned APP that the victim as well as the mother of the victim have already been examined.

¶19

The order of this Court vide which the anticipatory bail was granted to respondent no. 2 is of 21.09.2021 and no complaint filed by the petitioner is on record suggesting any violation of the condition subject to which the anticipatory bail was granted.

¶20

In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the petition.

¶21

The petition stands dismissed.

¶22

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶23

DECEMBER 16, 2024 ‘ rs’

¶24

This is a digitally signed order. 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 23/12/2024 at 12:07:18

Prosecutrix through Mother v. the State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prosecutrix through Mother v. the State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Harmeet Singh Bawa Vs State of NCT through Secretary & Anr.

Dr. Prerna Diwan Vs the State of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Anr.

Dr. Manish Diwan Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Prabhjit Singh Johar Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Ankush Kashyap Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Sara Cabs Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Central Bureau of Investigation