32 * + 0/o IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 2179/2011 MAN1SHA GANGAHAR ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Arman Sharma & Mr. Shimpy Sharma, Advocate versus SAMIR BEDI & ORS. ..... Respondent Mr. B.T. Singh & 1\1r. A.S. Anand, Advocates for R-1. Through CORAM: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State with ASI Sarita Rathi, PS CWC. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ORDER 27.07.2011 By this petition, the Petitioner seeks cancellation of bail on the ground that the Respondent No.1 has defied the order dated 14th May, 2010 granting bail to him. As per the petition, the Petitioner contended that the Respondent No.1 was granted anticipatory bail subject to stringent condition such as payment of Rs. 10 lacs as lump sum to the Petitioner, a security of 5 lacs to be deposited in court and an ad-hoc monthly maintenance of 30,000/- to the Complainant. On a notice being issued, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 has entered appearance .. He states that as per the order dated 14th May, 2010, --------------------------------·---- Signing Date:21.08.2024 17:03:48 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified two conditions were imposed on the Respondent while granting bail. One was giving of a lump sum amount of lacs to the Complainant and secondly providing a monthly maintenance of to the Complainant from the date of filing of the complaint which resulted in the registration of the FIR in question. No other condition was imposed. The payment of 10 lacs and 30,000/- per month was also without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Respondent herein and subject to be adjusted. According to the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 both these conditions have been duly complied with. According to the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 the averment of learned counsel for the Petitioner that he was granted bail on a stringent condition that he would furnish a security 5 lacs to ensure his presence as and when required by the Court in para 3 of the petition is misstatement of facts. A perusal of the order- sheet shows that this Court was very clear and it had not imposed any condition of security 5 lacs. It had only taken note that the Petitioner had been required to furnish a security of 5 lacs to ensure his presence as and when required by the Court trying the complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act(in short 'the Act') preferred by his wife. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 states that the Respondent had furnished this security before the Court trying the complaint under 'the Act'. However, after the disposal of the application under Section 12 of 'the Act' the Respondent has withdrawn the said security amount. Learned counsel for the Respondent however assures that as and when the Petitioner would be required before the Trial Court, he would be present. From the perusal of the order dated 14th May, 2010, I fmd there is no non-compliance as it the admitted case of the Petitioner that she has been paid a lump sum 10 lacs and is being paid a monthly maintenance of 30,0001- per month by bankers' cheque/draft. I find no merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed. JULY 27,2011 'dk' MUKTA GUPTA,J