Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SHAVETA KATARIA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Anand, Mr. Jaypreet Singh, Mr. Pawan Yadav and Ms. Radha, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State.
PSI Guddi, PS: Rani Bagh.
Mr. Arun Khatri, Ms. Shelly Dixit, Ms. Anisha Maan, Ms. Tracy Sebastian and Mr. Yogesh Gehlaut, Advocates for Complainant.
ASHISH KANSAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Anand, Mr. Jaypreet Singh, Mr. Pawan Yadav and Ms. Radha, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State.
PSI Guddi, PS: Rani Bagh.
Mr. Arun Khatri, Ms. Shelly Dixit, Ms. Anisha Maan, Ms. Tracy Sebastian and Mr. Yogesh Gehlaut, Advocates for Complainant.
JUDGMENT
1. These applications under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023[1] (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973[2])seek regular bailin theproceedingsarisingfrom FIR No. 303/2024dated 28th May, 2024, registered at P.S. RaniBagh for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(c), 120B, 354, 354(D), 328, 323 and 506 ofthe Indian PenalCode, 18603 read with Sections[6], 10 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012[4].
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: 2.[1] The FIR was registered on a complaintofthe prosecutrix, a girl child aged 14 years. In her complaint, she stated that the Applicants, Shaveta Kataria and AshishKansal, alongwith co-accused ShekharKansal, had been acquainted with her family for the past ten years. During this period, it is alleged that co-accused Shekhar Kansal administered intoxicating substances to her, subjected her to sexual assault including acts of molestation and digital penetration, and issued threats to her life. 2.[2] The prosecutrix thereafter underwent counselling by a DCW 1 “BNSS” 2 “CrPC” 3 “IPC” counsellor, and her medical examination was conducted at Bhagwan MahavirHospital, Pitampura, Delhi. TheMLC records allegationsof sexual assault against Shekhar Kansal and his younger brother, Ashish Kansal. 2.[3] The Prosecutrix disclosed that Shekharhad introduced himself to her family as a spiritual “baba”, claiming to possess special powers to bless devotees and resolve their life’s problems. Her family, believing in these claims, reposed blind faith in him and would bow down before him. Exploitingthis trust, Shekharis alleged to have administered cigarettes and prashad laced with intoxicants to the family. Under such influence, he would, on a regular basis, touch theprosecutrixinappropriately on her neck, face, lower back, and private parts. It is further alleged that the applicant ShavetaKataria coerced theprosecutrix to engagein inappropriateactivities with Shekharand to consumethesaid prashad. Allegations have also been levelled that AshishKansalsimilarly assaulted the prosecutrix on multiple occasions.
2.4. In or about December 2023, Ashish Kansal allegedly began making physicaladvances towards the prosecutrix. He would hug her in a manner that madeher distinctly uncomfortableand, when sheattempted to resist, he is said to havetouched her back, shoulders, and faceagainst her will. On one occasion, when she was alone with him in a car while out to purchase an item, he allegedly touched her on her thighs, back, and chest. It is further alleged that hefrequentlyaddressed her in crudeand sexually inappropriate terms.
2.5. The prosecution also assertsthattheaccused had unhinderedaccess to theprosecutrix’smobilephoneandthreatened her that, if shespoke out, her 4 “POCSO Act” photographs and videos would be circulated. In addition, it is alleged that pressurewas broughtto bear on the prosecutrix’s father, who was coerced into transferringmoney into the accounts of the accused under unspecified pretexts.
2.6. The Applicants,alongwith co-accused ShekharKansal, werearrested on 31st May, 2024. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed on 25th July, 2024, under Sections 120B, 354D, 328, 323 and 506 of IPC read with Section 17 of POCSO Act againstShavetaKataria;and under Sections 120B, 354,354D,328 and 506ofIPC read with Sections 10 and 17 of POCSO Act against Ashish Kansal.
3. Both the Applicants, Shaveta Kataria and Ashish Kansal, initially approached the Sessions Court seeking grant of regular bail. Their applications were dismissed by orders dated 6th August, 2024 and 2nd September, 2024, respectively.
4. Thereafter, by a common order dated 26th November, 2024, a coordinate bench of this Court directed the release of both Applicants on regular bail.
5. The Complainant challenged the abovementioned order before the Supreme Court. By a common order dated 15th July, 2025, the Supreme Court set aside the order dated 26th November, 2024 and remanded both applications to this Court for fresh consideration. While doing so, the SupremeCourt specifically observedthattheHigh Court had not furnished adequate reasons for granting bail in a case involving such serious allegations undertheIPC and POCSO Act. At the same time, the Supreme Court directedthat, untildisposalofthe applications, no coercivesteps shall be taken againsttheApplicants. For easeofreference, the relevant portions of the order dated 15th July, 2025 are extracted below: “Leave granted.
2. The appellant is the complainant and the father of the alleged minor victim. Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2024 passed in Bail Application Nos.3339/2024 and 3306/2024 by the High Court of Delhi by which the High Court has granted the relief of bail to the respondentaccused(s), subject to certain terms and conditions, the complainant is before this Court.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned ASG; learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-State and learned counsel for the respondent-accused(s) and perused the material on record.
4. During the course of submissions, appellant’s counsel drew our attention to the tenor of the impugned order and contended that while granting the relief of bail in a case where serious offences have been alleged against the accused vis-a-vis the minor victim, the High Court has failed to record any reason for doing so.
5. In this regard, our attention was drawn to ‘paragraph 11’ of the impugned order to contend that the High Court has in fact found fault with the contents of the FIR so as to grant relief to the respondent-accused(s). He submitted that on a reading of the statement of the minor victim under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and having regard to the serious nature of the crime alleged against the accused, the High Court ought not to have granted the relief of bail to the respondent-accused(s). He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order may be set-aside and the bail granted to the respondent-accused(s) may be cancelled.
6. Learned senior counsel and learned ASG appearing for the respondent-State also supported the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant herein. She contended that having regard to the fact that the victim is a minor girl child, the allegations against the accused are serious and therefore the High Court ought to have been more cautious in considering the case of the respondent-accused(s).
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-accused(s) supported the impugned order and contended that the accused have been enjoying the relief of the bail order since November 2024, that there has been no violation of any of the terms and conditions of the bail; that they have been cooperating with the Sessions Court inasmuch as they have been appearing on all dates of hearing. Hence, there is no merit in these appeals.
8. We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar in light of the facts of the present case and in light of the impugned order. We note that the allegations made against the respondent-accused(s) in FIR No.303/2024 dated 28.05.2024 are under Sections 120B, 323, 328, 354, 354D, 376, 376(C) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6, 10 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offices Act, 2012. The respondentaccused were remanded to judicial custody on 02.06.2024 when they were arrested from Khanauri Mandi, Punjab from the house of accused No.1. The chargesheet was filed on 24.07.2024. The investigation has been carried out and since respondent-accused(s) were arrested they sought for relief of bail before the Trial Court which was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the respondent-accused(s) preferred their bail applications before the High Court.
9. We have perused the impugned order passed by the High Court by granting the relief of bail. We note that while the High Court has recorded the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties at length has given reason only in ‘paragraph 11’ for the purpose of granting the relief of bail. For immediate reference, we extract ‘paragraph 11’ of the impugned order as under:
10. On a perusal of the same, we find that the reasons assigned thereunder are not in tandem with the relief that was actually sought for and the relief that was granted to the respondent-accused(s).
11. In the circumstances, we find that even though several conditions may have been imposed while granting bail, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have considered the matter(s) from all perspectives and as to whether the accused were entitled to the relief of bail.
12. In the circumstances, we find that the ends of justice would be met in the instant cases if the impugned order is set aside and the matters are remanded to the High Court for reconsideration of the bail applications made by the respondents before the High Court.
13. Since we are remanding the matter to the High Court, we request the High Court to dispose of the bail applications at the earliest and within a period of one month from first date of hearing. For that purpose, the parties shall appear in-person or through their respective counsel before the High Court on 23.07.2025.
14. Since we have requested the High Court to dispose of the bail applications in a time-bound manner and bearing in mind the fact that the respondent-accused(s) had the benefit of the impugned order, we direct that no coercive steps shall be taken till the disposal of the bail applications by the High Court.
15. However, the respondent-accused(s) shall cooperate with the Sessions Court and shall appear on all dates of hearings when they are required to do so. The reconsideration of their matters by the High Court would not come in the way of the Sessions Court’s proceedings in the matters.
16. The bonds executed by the respondent-accused(s) shall remain till the disposal of the applications filed by the respondent-accused(s) herein by the High Court. These appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
6. The present applications have been placed before this Court for reconsiderationon merits,pursuantto the directions of the Supreme Court.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANTS
7. Mr. Rajesh Anand, counsel for the Applicants, in support of the prayer for grant of regular bail, advances the following submissions: False Implication and Motive:
7.1. The Applicants have been falsely implicated and have already remained in custodyfor over five and a halfmonths. The investigation now stands concluded, anda chargesheet was filed on 25th July, 2024. With the case at thestageof argumentson charge, the trial is likely to be protracted, warranting release of the Applicants on bail pending its conclusion.
7.2. Thereexists a background offinancialdealings and disputes between the father of the prosecutrix and the applicant Shaveta Kataria. Shaveta herselfhad previously been subjected to harassment, blackmail, and sexual exploitationat thehandsofthe complainant’s father. In this backdrop, the subject FIR is filed with a mala fide intent, engineered to exert pressure in connection with thosedisputes rather than a genuine prosecution of crime.
7.3. The complaint dated 24th May, 2024, which forms the basis of the FIR, is a two-pagetyped document bearing the purported signature of the 14-year-oldprosecutrix. The language, structure, and level of detail in the complaint areincongruouswith the age and educational level of the minor, suggestingthecontentsweredrafted by an adultand not by thechild herself. Delay and Contradictions:
7.4. Thereis a significant and unexplained delay in reporting the alleged incidents. Although the complaint was lodged on 25th May, 2024, the prosecutrix’s statementunder Section 164 CrPC shifted the timeline of the alleged incidents to November-December, 2023, indicating a gap of nearly five months, casting doubt on the spontaneity and reliability of the allegations. No inquiry into this delay has been undertaken by the investigating agency.
7.5. There are material contradictions between the statements of the prosecutrix and her parents. Initially, she alleged that the incidents took place in the months immediately preceding the complaint, but in her later statement,sheplaced them in November-December 2023. Themother ofthe prosecutrix statedthatthe father became aware of the matter in December, 2023, whereas the father himself deposed that he came to know only in March, 2024. Such discrepancies, accordingto the Applicants, strike at the root oftheprosecution’sversion andreinforcetheir contention that the case has been fabricated. Improbabilities in the Case of the Prosecution:
7.6. The incidents arealleged to haveoccurred within the residence of the prosecutrix, whereher mother, a housewife, and othersiblings were present throughout. It is difficult to conceive that repeated acts of sexual assault could havebeen carried out in such circumstances without theknowledge or suspicion of the other family members.
7.7. The Applicants rely on photographs andother material placed before the Investigating Officer, showing that during the relevant period, the prosecutrix and her family continued to celebratebirthdays and other social functions withtheApplicants. Such conduct, it is urged, is inconsistent with theclaim that thefamily was labouringunder traumaor hostilitytowardsthe Applicants.
7.8. The prosecutrix’s family also visited Khanauri, District Sangrur, Punjab, where the Applicants reside and manage their premises. No allegation of any untoward conduct at Khanauri has ever been levelled, which further undermines the credibility of the prosecution’s narrative. Defects and Lapses in Investigation:
7.9. No site plan or internalsketch oftheflat was prepared to show where the alleged incidents took place. Although the victim alleged that she had been intoxicated by beingadministered ladoosor prashad laced with drugs, no blood or urine sample was collected, nor was any toxicological test conducted to verify theclaim. In the absenceof such corroborative medical evidence, theallegation remains unsubstantiated. Intoxication, by its very nature, impairs memory and consciousness, raising doubt about the reliability of the prosecutrix’srecollection ofevents. It is further pointed out that the FSL report does not record any adverse finding against the Applicants.
7.10. Mandatoryprocedures relatingto theinvestigationwerenot followed. No inquiry was conducted under Section 24 of the POCSO Act, which specifically mandatesthatthestatement ofthechild victim shallbe recorded by a woman policeofficer, preferablyat theresidenceof thechild or a place of her choice, in a manner that is child-friendly and ensures the child’s comfort. However, in thepresentcase, no such statement of the victim was recorded in accordance with the said provision. Furthermore, the requirementsof Standing Order No. 303 (‘Guidelines for Police Response and Investigationin Cases ofSexualOffence’) dated 25th May, 2019, issued by the Delhi Police, were not complied with. The Applicants were also never called upon or summoned to participate in the investigation, further reflecting the procedural lapses in the case.
7.11. The Investigating Officer failed to examine relevant aspects of the case, which fall in favourofthe Applicants,such as certain photographsand WhatsApp chats between the parties. Illegality of Arrest:
7.12. The Applicants wereapprehended from Khanauri, District Sangrur, Punjab, in violation ofdueprocess. Thegrounds ofarrestwerenot supplied to them and therefore, their arrest was invalid. On this aspect, reliance is placed on thejudgment of theSupremeCourt in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of A.P. & Ors[5].
7.13. No notice under Section 41A CrPCwas issued to theApplicants, even though mostoftheoffences alleged arepunishablewith imprisonmentup to seven years. TheinvocationofSection 328 IPC in thepresentFIR is without evidentiary basis and has been deliberately included so as to evade the 5 SLP (CRL.) 7746/2025. safeguards articulated in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar[6] and Satinder Singh Antil v. CBI[7]. Conduct and Antecedents of the Applicants:
7.14. The Applicants haveclean antecedentsand did not misuse the liberty granted to them, while they were out on bail in accordance with the order dated 26th November,2024. Notably, Shaveta Kataria was granted interim bail between 16th June, 2024 and 3rd July, 2024 for her mother’s medical treatment.Duringthis period,sheneither misusedher liberty nor attempted to evade surrender and duly returned to custody.
7.15. There is no evidence or circumstance on record to suggest that the Applicantsareflight risks, havetamperedwith evidence, or have attempted to influence witnesses.
CONTENTIONS OF THE COMPLAINANT AND STATE
8. On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State, and Mr. Arun Khatri,counselfor theComplainant, strongly oppose the present bail applications and submit as follows:
8.1. The allegations pertainto sexualassaultupona minor girl aged about 14 years, attractingstringent provisions of the POCSO Act. The offence is graveand heinous, strikingat the dignity and bodily integrity of a child. In such cases, theCourtsarerequired to adopt a victim-centric approach and balance the rights of the accused against the larger societal interest in safeguarding children from sexual offences.
8.2. The prosecution caseis supported by thestatementof the Prosecutrix recorded under Section164 CrPC, which is sufficient at this stage to prima 6 AIR 2014 SC 2756.
facie establish the allegations. These statements are not isolated but are consistent with her complaint as well as with her statements before the Counsellorand theDoctor,thereby lending credibility to the version of the prosecution.
8.3. The victim, being a minor, is particularly vulnerable to pressure and intimidation. If the Applicants are enlarged on bail, it is apprehended that their close proximity to the family and the long-standing relationship between theparties would createa climate of fear and seriously impede the prosecutrix’s ability to depose freely during trial. The risk of witness intimidation or subtle coercion is real and not speculative.
8.4. Contraryto theassertionsofthe Applicants,a preliminaryinquiry was in fact conducted by SI Anjali, and a report dated 28th May, 2024 was submitted to the Duty Officer at P.S. Rani Bagh. Moreover, before registrationof the FIR, counselling of the Prosecutrix was conducted by a DCW Counsellor, and her medicalexamination wascarried out at Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Pitampura, Delhi. These steps reflect due compliance with procedural safeguards.
ANALYSIS
9. The POCSO Act is a specialstatute enacted with theavowedobject of protectingminorsfrom sexualoffences. The statute incorporates statutory presumptions in favourofthe child victim. Theseriousnessof such offences must remain at the forefront while considering bail. At the same time, the Court cannotbeunmindful of the principles governing bail under criminal jurisprudence. The inquiry at this stage is not into guilt or innocence but whether there exists a prima facie reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committedtheoffence, thenatureandgravityoftheaccusation, severity ofpotentialpunishment, risk oftheaccused abscondingor fleeing if released on bail, the likelihood of the offence being repeated[8]. These considerationsmustbe applied in a manner that strikes a balance between thefundamental right to personal liberty on the one hand and the societal imperative of safeguarding children on the other.
10. The Supreme Court in the recent case of Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar alias Deepu alias Deepak and Anr.9, emphasised that bail is a discretionaryrelief, to be granted or denied based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The Court further delineated the factors to be taken into consideration while exercising such discretion, as follows:
8 Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr. (2010) 14 SCC 496. 9 2023 INSC 761. the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to have an order of bail.” [Emphasis Supplied]
11. The plea of false implication advanced by the Applicants is, at its core, a matter of defence to be put forth by the Applicants at trial. At the stageof considerationof bail, such assertions cannot be permitted to dilute thespecific and direct allegations levelled by the prosecutrix. Questions of alleged financial disputes, photographs of social interactions, or other collateralmaterialaremattersto be tested duringthecourseoftrial. The law is well settled that bail proceedings are not intended to mirror the evidentiaryrigourofa full-fledged trial. To engage in a detailed assessment of competing versions at this stage would risk converting the bail hearing into a mini-trial, something courts are consistently cautioned against10.
12. The Applicants havealso emphasised thatthecomplaint is typed and detailed, making it improbable that a 14-year-old could have authored it unaided, andthatcontradictions appearin the statements of the prosecutrix and her parents. Whilethesesubmissionsarenot entirely without force, they cannot detractfrom thefact that the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 164 CrPC substantially reiterates the core allegations, which in turn find mention bothin her MLC and in the FIR. The prosecutrixhas, in particular, alleged that around December 2023, Ashish Kansal began hugging her forcefully despiteher resistance, causingher discomfort and revulsion. She further stated that when she attempted to disengage, he touched her inappropriately. On oneoccasion, whileshewas alone with him in a car on the pretext of purchasing an item, he allegedly touched her on her thighs,
10 See also: Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar& Anr., (2022) 4 SCC 497 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ back, and chest. He is also stated to have repeatedly used abusive and offensivelanguagetowards her. The consistency across different stages of theproceedings lends credibilityto her version and, taken cumulatively, at this stage, furnishes a strong prima facie case against Ashish Kansal.
13. Thereis sometime gap between thealleged incidents, i.e., November- December 2023, and the lodging of the complaint in May 2024. Indeed, delay is often considered as a factor weakening the prosecution’s case, however, it is also well-recognised that delay in reporting, especially in cases of sexualassault involvingminors, is not uncommonand does not, by itself, demolish thecase. Thefacts outlined in the FIR describetheclose and reverential relationship between Shekhar Kansal (elder brother of the Applicant Ashish) and the Prosecutrix’s family. The Prosecutrix and her family held Shekhar in high regard, referring to him as “Baba ji”, bowing before him, and even being encouraged to worship his photograph. This dynamicindicatesthedeep level of psychologicalinfluenceand control that Shekhar and Ashish Kansal may have exercised over the family, which helps explain the delay in filing the FIR.
14. The Applicants alsoattempted to undermine the prosecution’s prima facie case by arguing that the alleged incidents could not have occurred within a family residencewhereother members werepresent, and thefamily continued to maintain social ties with them during the intervening period. Such factors, whilenot insignificant, arenot determinative. Sexual offences can and do occur in environments whereothersarepresentbut unaware, and continued socialinteractionmay reflect coercive, cultural, or psychological factors rather than an indication of falsity. Polia, 2020 (2) SCC 118.
15. The alleged lapses such as theabsenceof a site plan, lack of forensic confirmation regarding intoxicants, incomplete adherence to Standing Orders or themandateofSection 24 of thePOCSO Act may point towards investigative deficiencies. However, the record also reflects that the prosecutrix was counselled by the DCW and that a preliminary inquiry preceded registration of the FIR. At this stage, such irregularities, even if assumed, cannot outweigh or neutralise the gravity of the offence, the categoricalallegationsofsexualassault by AshishKansal, supported by the prosecutrix’s 164CrPCstatement andthecontemporaneousmedical record.
16. The Court is also not persuaded with the plea of non-supply of the groundsofarrest. A similar plea advanced by co-accused Shekhar Kansal was rejected by this Court videorder dated 14th May, 2025. Thechallenge to the said order was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 25th August, 2025. The same reasoning shall also apply to the Applicants.
THE DIFFERENTIATING FACTS IN THE TWO CASES
17. In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court now proceeds to examine the facts specific to each Applicant. Here, a clear distinction emerges: the prosecution attributes substantive and direct acts of sexual assault to Ashish Kansal, not only in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, but also corroborated by the medical records. The allegations against Shaveta Kataria are of abetment and facilitation, namely, inducingthechild to consumelaced prashad and pressuring her to acquiesce to the conduct of the co-accused. The statutory scheme itself recognises the distinction between commission and abetment, and at the stage of bail this differentiation assumes significance.
18. Pertinently, thevictim, who is stilla minor, is undoubtedly vulnerable to pressure, and thelongstandingrelationship between the families creates a risk of influence. In Ashish’s case, where he is alleged to have directly assaulted the victim, the risk of intimidation becomes all the more acute. Shaveta’s case, however, the risk, though present, can be adequately mitigated by imposing stringent conditions.
19. In light of the abovediscussion and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that Ashish Kansal cannot,at this stage, beenlarged on bail. His continued detention, therefore, is necessary both to safeguard the integrity of the trial and to give effect to the protective mandate of the statute.
20. The case againstShavetaKataria is limited to abetment,and sheis not charged under Sections 6 or 10 of the POCSO Act. Moreover, her antecedentsareclean. It must also benoted thatShavetawas earlier granted interim bailtwice by theTrialCourt,in order to attendto her ailing mother, and on both the occasions she complied with the conditions and duly surrendered. Her continued detentionis thus unwarranted, particularly when any potentialrisk oftampering or absconding can be effectively addressed through the imposition of stringent bail conditions.
DIRECTIONS
21. In view of the above analysis, the following directions are issued in BAIL APPLN. 3306/2024:
21.1. The Applicant, Shaveta Kataria, is granted the relief of bail on furnishinga personalbond for a sum of INR 50,000/- with two sureties of thelike amount, subject to thesatisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty MM, on the following conditions: a. The Applicant shall cooperate in any further investigation as and when directed by the concerned IO; b. The Applicantshall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever; c. The Applicantshallunderno circumstanceleave the country without the permission of the Trial Court; d. The Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when directed; e. The Applicantshallprovidetheaddress where she would be residing after his release and shall not change the address without informing the concerned IO/ SHO; f. The Applicantshallgive her mobile number to theconcerned IO/SHO and shall keep her mobile phone switched on at all times. g. The Applicantshallreport to theconcerned PS on thefirst Monday of every month;However, sheshallnot bekept waitingfor morethan an hour.
21.2. In the event of there being any FIR / DD entry / complaint lodged against her, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.
22. In BAIL APPLN. 3339/2024, theapplication for regular bail filed by Ashish Kansalis dismissed. Heis directed to surrenderbeforetheconcerned jail authorities within a period of ten days from today.
23. The bail applications, along with pending applications, are accordingly disposed of.
24. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail applications and should not influence the outcomeofthetrialand also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 12, 2025 d.negi