Delhi High Court – Orders
Mukta Purohit vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 4 May, 2026
$~94
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3413/2026, CRL.M.A. 13780/2026, CRL.M.A.
13781/2026
MUKTA PUROHIT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj and Mr. Tushar
Garg, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP with Ms.
Upasna Bakshi, Mr. Dinesh Kumar,
and Ms. Divya Bakshi, Advocates
SI Rahul Lamba, PS.: Saket, Delhi
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
ORDER
% 04.05.2026
1. By virtue of the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner/ complainant seeks setting
aside of the order dated 13.04.2026 (impugned order) passed by the
learned ASJ, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (learned Sessions
Court) in Bail Application No.669/2026 whereby interim bail has been
granted to the respondent no.2/ accused for a period of three months.
2. Learned counsel for the complainant primarily submits that though
the bail granted to the accused vide order dated 13.06.2023 passed by the
learned MM, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi was cancelled by
the learned ACJM, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi by a detailed
and well-reasoned order dated 09.04.2026, and that too after giving due
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2026 at 21:10:33
consideration to each and every assertion made by the parties, the learned
Sessions Court erred in passing the impugned order without issuing notice
to the complainant. For this, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh & Ors. vs. Ashish Mishra Alias Monu &
Anr.: (2022) 9 SCC 321, wherein it has been held as under:-
“19. It was further recommended that the victim be armed
with a right to be represented by an advocate of his/her choice,
and if he/ she is not in a position to afford the same, to provide
an advocate at the State’s expense. The victim’s right to
participate in criminal trial and his/her right to know the status
of investigation, and take necessary steps, or to be heard at every
crucial stage of the criminal proceedings, including at the time of
grant or cancellation of bail, were also duly recognised by the
Committee. Repeated judicial intervention, coupled with the
recommendations made from time to time as briefly noticed
above, prompted the Parliament to bring into force the Code of
Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008, which not only
inserted the definition of a ‘victim’ under Section 2 (wa) but also
statutorily recognised various rights of such victims at different
stages of trial.
xxx xxx xxx
24. The abovestated enunciations are not to be conflated with
certain statutory provisions, such as those present in the Special
Acts like the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989, where there is a legal obligation to hear
the victim at the time of granting bail. Instead, what must be
taken note of is that:
24.1. First, the Indian jurisprudence is constantly
evolving, whereby, the right of victims to be heard,
especially in cases involving heinous crimes, is
increasingly being acknowledged.
24.2. Second, where the victims themselves have come
forward to participate in a criminal proceeding, they mustThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2026 at 21:10:33
be accorded with an opportunity of a fair and effective
hearing. If the right to file an appeal against acquittal, is
not accompanied with the right to be heard at the time of
deciding a bail application, the same may result in grave
miscarriage of justice. Victims certainly cannot be
expected to be sitting on the fence and watching the
proceedings from afar, especially when they may have
legitimate grievances. It is the solemn duty of a court to
deliver justice before the memory of an injustice eclipses.”
3. Therefore, as per the factual matrix involved, as also what has been
held in Jagjeet Singh (supra), it is not in dispute that the present FIR
concerns grave offences under Sections 354(C)/452/506/509 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 66C/66E/67 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000, as also that the impugned order has been passed
without issuance of notice to the complainant. In view thereof, as also
considering the speaking order dated 09.04.2026 passed by the learned
ACJM, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi cancelling the bail
granted to the accused, it was incumbent upon the learned Sessions Court
to issue notice to the complainant. However, this Court finds that not only
has the learned Sessions Court not issued notice to the complainant but
also proceeded to grant an interim bail, and that too for a long period of
three months to the accused without any prayer for the same and/ or giving
any cogent reasoning for the same.
4. In view of the aforesaid, though this Court is not interfering with
the impugned order dated 13.04.2026 passed by the learned Sessions
Court in Bail Application No.669/2026, however, the learned Sessions
Court is directed to dispose of Bail Application No.669/2026 made by the
accused on or before 20.05.2026, after giving due opportunity of hearing
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2026 at 21:10:33
to the complainant.
5. Accordingly, the next date of hearing before the learned Sessions
Court is preponed to 13.05.2026, and the date of 13.07.2026 already fixed
is cancelled.
6. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Sessions Court for taking
appropriate and necessary action.
7. Learned APP for the State is also directed to intimate the accused
about the same.
8. The present petition along with the pending applications is disposed
of in the aforesaid terms.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J
MAY 4, 2026/bh
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2026 at 21:10:33
