Dismissed

Pushpa Singhal v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors.

Delhi HC12 Dec 2024CRL.REV.P./409/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court, in revision, dismissed a petition challenging the Additional Sessions Judge's rejection of a bail cancellation application. The Court upheld the lower court's order, finding no reason to interfere as the bail conditions were satisfied and no complaints regarding threats were made.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the order refusing cancellation of bail was dismissed.

Pushpa Singhal Vs State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors. — Bail and Remand | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~26

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.REV.P. 409/2019 CRL.M.A. 7331/2019 PUSHPA SINGHAL .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Ms. Pallavi S. Kansal, Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Mr. Raghav Vij & Mr. Pratham Malik, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

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.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶8

O R D E R % 12.12.2024

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

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

¶13

22^nd November, 2016 ( extending threats to the petitioner ).

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

The Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶17

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶18

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶19

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶20

DECEMBER 12, 2024/ ak

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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

Pushpa Singhal v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Singhal v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors.

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

State of NCT of Delhi Vs Seema

Veer Singh & Ors. Vs State (Govt of NCT Delhi) and Anr.

Ramesh Ahuja Vs State NCT of Delhi

Vikrant R Sharma Vs State( NCT of Delhi)

Rohit Kumar Vs Rakhi & Anr.

Dave Prakash Pradyuman Proprietor Jas Enterprise & Anr. Vs the State NCT of Delhi through SHO & Anr.