Complainant sought cancellation of anticipatory bail earlier granted to an accused in a property-sale matter. The State reported the charge sheet had been filed and charges under Section 201 IPC were being pursued. Since investigation concluded and the charge sheet was filed, the court found no purpose in cancelling bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~6
KAPIL ARORA .....Petitioner
Through:
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP for State. Mr. Shantanu Singh, Ms. Pragya Singh and Mr. Akshay Singh, Advocates for complainant.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
O R D E R % 16.12.2024
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 18/12/2024 at 11:39:05
ANISH DAYAL, J
DECEMBER 16, 2024/RK
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 18/12/2024 at 11:39:05
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.2 should be cancelled given that the original sale documents were not taken into custody and the charge sheet relies on photocopies.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kapil Arora
State of NCT of Delhi
Respondent No. 2 (accused granted anticipatory bail)
Anish Dayal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
