SUNITA YADAV vs STATE & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 29th January, 2025 + CRL.M.C. 1672/2018 SUNITA YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. L C Rajput, Advocate through VC. versus 1. STATE Through Standing Counsel (Criminal), Delhi High Court, New Delhi .....Respondent No. 1 2. PREM VEER S/o Shri Balwant Singh, R/o House No. A-23, Shanti Niketan Colony, Roorkee Road, Meerut, U.P. .....Respondent No. 2 Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for State. S.I. Ranjana, PS Subzi Mandi, Delhi. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA % J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. The present Petition under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking to cancel the Order dated 26.02.2018 vide which the Respondent No. 2 has been admitted to Regular Bail in FIR No. 10/2018 under Sections 376(2)(b)/354/420/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC, 1860”) registered at Police Station Subzi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1672/2018 Page 1 of 5 By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:31.01.2025 17:04:32 Mandi, Delhi. 2. The main grounds on which the cancellation of the bail has been sought, are that the first Bail Application of the Respondent No. 2 had been dismissed vide Order dated 12.01.2018 on the ground that the Respondent No. 2 by misusing his official position as a Public Servant cheated the Petitioner/Complainant to the tune of Rs. 12,00,000/- and also sexually exploited her and also there was no substantial delay in lodging the FIR and the said allegations are serious in nature and also the investigation is at the crucial stage. 3. Thereafter, barely after a month, the second Bail Application had preferred by the Respondent No. 2 which was allowed by the learned