JYOTI vs STATE

Judgment text excerpt

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 07.05.2025 + BAIL APPLN. 3814/2022 & CRL. M.A. 27563/2023 (for addition of Section 174A of IPC) & CRL. M. (BAIL) 1252/2023 (for extension of interim bail) JYOTI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manish Pratap Singh, Advocate. versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State with Inspector Ramkesh, PS EOW. Mr. Satvinder Singh and Mr. Simran Jot Singh, Advocates for Complainant de facto CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 207/2019 of PS Economic Offences Wing for offences under Section 406/420/120B IPC. I have heard learned counsel for the accused/applicant and learned APP as well as learned counsel for complainant de facto. As reflected from record, vide order dated 03.03.2023, the accused/applicant was released on interim bail by the Predecessor Bench so that parties could try to amicably settle the dispute. The matter was referred by the Predecessor Bench to Mediation Centre, Delhi High Court on 09.05.2024 and thereafter, it remained pending BAIL APPLN. 3814/2022 Page 1 of 5 pages GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2025.05.07 18:04:35 +05'30' Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Date:07.05.2025 18:47:57 there till 01.04.2025. Learned APP submits that the mediation proceedings continued to be extended on the basis of approvals granted by the Predecessor Benches. 2. Broadly speaking, the allegation of prosecution is that the co-accused Rakesh Singh (already on bail vide order dated 05.03.2021 of a coordinate bench of this court) introduced the present accused/applicant to the complainant de facto. The company in which the accused/applicant holds majority shareholding e