RAJAN AHUJA vs STATE AND ANR

Judgment text excerpt

$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 24th March, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 6613/2023, CRL.M.A. 8476/2026 & CRL.M.A. 8477/2026 RAJAN AHUJA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Bajaj and Mr. Naman Arora, Advocates (DHCLSC) versus STATE AND ANR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for State/R-1 with SI Divya, PS Kishangarh Mr. Rohit Rattu, Advocate for complainant/R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. The situation is little unusual here. 2. Applicant is facing trial in case FIR No. 402/2022 dated 30.08.2022, registered at Police Station Kishan Garh for commission of offences under Sections 354(A)/354(D)/509 IPC. 3. He sought bail and vide order dated 27.03.2023, learned Court of Sessions granted him bail. While granting bail, learned Court of Sessions observed as under: - “In the opinion of the Court, the allegations of the accused that he has been falsely implicated at the behest of the complainant cannot be dismissed at the threshold, however, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions of both sides, this Court is of the opinion that custodial detention of the accused is not required in fact and circumstances of the case. Accused is therefore granted regular court bail pending trial on his furnishing personal bail bond and one surety in the sum of Rs. 35,000/- with the following conditions:- Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 6613/2023 1 Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:24.03.2026 15:46:52 (i) that the accused shall not reside within a distance of 10 km from the house of the victim or the complainant. (ii) that the accused shall not in any manner foster contact engage in any personal interaction with the victim or the complainant which has the affect of prejudicing trial. (iii) that