[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Rajan Ahuja vs State And Anr on 24 March, 2026
$~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:-
(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 the accused shall appear on each and every date before this
Court during trial.
With these observation bail application is allowed."
(emphasis supplied)
4. The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the condition No. 1
above i.e. his not being permitted to reside within a distance of 10 kms from
the house of the victim or the complainant.
5. At the time grant of aforesaid bail, though the investigation was
complete, the charges had yet not been ascertained and when the applicant
moved an application seeking alteration/waiving off of the aforesaid
condition, his such application was dismissed by learned Court of Sessions on
10.07.2023. Alteration was denied, primarily, for the reason that counsel for
complainant has apprehended threat to the safety and security of the minor
girl and her mother.
6. Applicant/accused and concerned victim and her family are residents
of the same building. Applicant/accused herein is occupying ground floor
whereas victim and her family are residing at the first floor. These are their
respective self-owned floors/residences.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 10.07.2023, applicant
filed present petition seeking modification and waiving off the aforesaid
condition. He asserts that by imposing the aforesaid condition, his valuable
right to reside has been adversely jeopardized as he has been denied to live in
his own house. He submits that parties are already in litigation and a civil
suit is going on between the parties and, moreover, since concerned minor has
already entered into witness box and her mother has also already been
examined, the aforesaid condition cannot be permitted to exist any more.
8. Petitioner was permitted to join the proceedings through
videoconferencing from jail. He has addressed arguments all by himself.
9. When asked, he submitted that he is in jail only in connection with
aforesaid case. He submits that though there is one more case against him
but in such other case, he is on bail, already.
10. During course of the arguments, he informed that that learned Trial
Court has, vide order dated 11.09.2025, already permitted his release on mere
furnishing of personal bond, albeit, the conditions, as above noted, continue
to be in operation, subject to any order passed in the present matter.
11. Learned counsel for complainant has joined the proceedings through
videoconferencing and submits that he would have no objection if the
aforesaid condition is waived off, particularly, in view of the fact that victim
has already been examined. He, however, submits that though there are
CCTV camera installed on the first floor where the complainant is residing,
the petitioner herein may also be requested to install CCTV cameras at the
ground floor. Petitioner has, himself, volunteered that once he is released
from jail, he would take requisite steps and would install such CCTV camera
outside his premises, within a period of four weeks from his release.
12. Nominal Roll of petitioner has been received. Same is taken on
record. As per Nominal Roll, petitioner is behind the bars for last 03 years,
03 months and 16 days and his jail conduct for last one year has been reported
to be satisfactory. Nominal Roll also reflects no previous conviction.
13. Keeping in mind the overall facts of the case and also the aforesaid
concession given by the learned counsel for complainant also, present petition
is allowed and the aforesaid condition no. 1 stands waived. However, at the
same time, petitioner, as undertaken during course of the arguments, would
not try to communicate, in any manner whatsoever, with the complainant or
her family members and shall adhere to the other conditions. Petitioner has
already been permitted to be released on personal bond and since despite there
being a bail order in his favour, petitioner continues to languish in jail for last
around three years, let personal bond be furnished before the concerned
Superintendent Jail so that there is no further delay in his release.
14. A copy of this order be immediately sent to concerned Superintendent
Jail for due information and compliance and with direction to give copy of
such order to petitioner for his reference and record.
15. Pending applications also stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
MARCH 24, 2026/dr/sy
