Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs . Smt. Vjay Ahuja& Ors. on 22 January, 2020

                IN THE COURT OF SH. PRAYANK NAYAK, MM­02,
                             KKD/SHD/DELHI.

R.No. 7850/19
FIR No. 211/17
PS : Farsh Bazar
                                    State vs. Smt. Vjay Ahuja& Ors.

22.01.2020
Present: Ld. APP for the State.


1.

By way of this order, I shall dispose of the application for cancellation of bail of accused Pooja Sharma, filed by the complainant Smt. Renuka Jain.

2. As per the application, accused Pooja Sharma has been granted bail by this court and after being released, has misused her liberty. It is stated that the Pooja Sharma has been extending threats to complainant Renuka Jain and her husband on various occasions. It is stated that on 24.10.19, 3­4 boys sent by Pooja Sharma threatened the husband of Renuka Jain and also slapped him.

3. On 30.10.2019 the son of accused Pooja Sharma threatened the complainant and said that if she and her husband appears before the court, they would be kidnapped and murdered. Similarly on 20.11.2019, Pooja Sharma threatened the complainant and her husband near the Lawyer's chamber, Block­ G. The incident was also repeated on 17.12.2019.

State vs. Smt. Vijay Ahuja & Ors. Page No. 1

4. Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that an FIR No.1084/14 PS Karawal Nagar was also lodged against accused Pooja Sharma and has stated that accused Pooja Sharma has been representing herself as lawyer by forging the card of the Bar Council of Delhi. It is further stated that accused Pooja Sharma had threatened the complainant and her counsel that she will falsely implicate them in a case of molestation/other offences. He has also placed reliance upon the conversation between Pooja Sharma and Vijay Ahuja the transcript and CD of which has been filed on record.

5. Ld. Counsel for accused Pooja Sharma has strongly opposed the application stating that Pooja Sharma had already filed a case against the complainant and the main accused Vijay Ahuja and Renuka Jain had threatened the accused Pooja Sharma. It is also stated that Pooja Sharma had not misused her liberty and has never threatened the complainant or her husband. It is also submitted that the documents produced by the complainant are not reliable.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled MYAKALA DHARMARAJAM & ORS. ETC Versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR. has observed ­ In Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar 2 this Court held that bail can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is State vs. Smt. Vijay Ahuja & Ors. Page No. 2 likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. The above grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to".

7. Hence, it is clear that the cancellation of bail is a harsh order and has to be resorted to in exceptional circumstances only. In the present case, no immediate call at No.100 was made by the complainant or her husband regarding the threats given by Pooja Sharma. Further, the complaint was made to the police on 23.11.2019 whereas the threats were alleged to have been given on 24.10.19 & 20.11.2019. Hence, there is a considerable delay in filing the police complaints regarding the threats alleged to have been given by accused Pooja Sharma. Also the transcript relied upon by the counsel for the complainant is pertaining to Pooja Sharma and Vijay Ahuja and does not pertain to threats given by Pooja Sharma to the complainant. Hence, the application for cancellation of bail of accused Pooja Sharma stands dismissed.

Put up for SOD/arguments on charge on 20.02.2020.

(Prayank Nayak) MM­02/KKD/SHD/Delhi 22.01.2020 State vs. Smt. Vijay Ahuja & Ors. Page No. 3