Pallavi Roy vs State & Another
2010 Latest Caselaw 3722 Del

10
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     CRL.M.C. 2160/2007

      PALLAVI ROY                    .... Petitioner
                        Through      Mr. J.S. Lamba and Mr. Rishabh
                                     Bhutani, Advocates.

                  versus

      STATE & ANR             .... Respondents
                        Through       Ms. Fizani Hussain, APP.
                                      SI Shish Pal, Div. North.
                                      Mr. A.K. Bajpai and Mr. M.F. Khan,
                                      Advocates.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
            ORDER

% 10.08.2010

Respondent No.2 was granted bail in FIR No.261/2007 under Sections

307/506 Indian Penal Code vide order dated 9th May, 2007. The petitioner

thereafter moved an application for cancellation of bail, which was rejected

vide order dated 21st May, 2007. This order records that the Investigating

Officer had submitted that both parties were creating disturbance and taking

law into their hands as a result of which proceedings under Sections 107/150

and 151 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had been filed against both the

parties.

2. The present petition was filed on or about 31st May, 2007 and has remained pending since then. Delhi Police has filed status report in response

to this petition. In the said status report it is pointed out that FIR

No.313/2007 was registered on the directions made by the Metropolitan

Magistrate on the basis of a private complaint, which was made by Ms. Usha

Gupta wife of the respondent No.2. In the said case, charge sheet has been

filed against eleven persons including the petitioner under Sections

147/149/323/426/34 Indian Penal Code. The case is now fixed for arguments

on charge before the trial court.

3. With regard to the respondent No.2, it is stated that he has been

acquitted in three cases and in one case cancellation report has been filed.

Four more cases, which were registered in the year 2006 and 2007, are

pending trial or investigation. No fresh case has been registered against

respondent No.2 after 2007.

4. It appears that Delhi Police has initiated externment proceedings

against respondent No.2 and the said respondent has filed a writ petition

before the High Court, which is pending adjudication.

5. The petitioner has relied upon some complaints, which were made in

May 2007, in support of his contention that respondent No.2 is abusing and

misusing the bail. Respondent No.2, on the other hand, has denied the said

allegation and has submitted that there are inter se disputes as the respondent No.2 is the builder, who has constructed flats and sold them to

the petitioner and other apartment owners. He has made submitted that

disputes have arisen because of maintenance charges/running cost of

common facilities.

6. The petitioner, however, has not filed copy of any complaint after

2007.

7. No new complaint has been made after the allegations, which were

made in May, 2007. The petitioner has been on bail since May, 2007 till

today. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see

any reason to cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2 vide order dated

9th May, 2007. The petition is dismissed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

AUGUST 10, 2010 NA/VKR