$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010393492026 + BAIL APPLN. 3471/2026 & CRL.M.A. 25874/2026 SHASHIMALA @RUBY .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Anushkaa Arora, DHCLSC with Mr. Deepanshu, Advocate versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with Inspector Sanjay Kumar Mr. Zishaan Dari, Advocate for complainant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA O R D E R % 21.08.2026 1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 349/2019 of PS Mayur Vihar for offence under Section 363 IPC. 2. At the outset, learned APP for State, assisted by IO/Inspector Sanjay Kumar, lodges strong objection that the accused/applicant has tried to mislead this Court. It is submitted by learned APP for State that the accused/applicant filed bail applications before this Court as well as the Court of Sessions simultaneously, without disclosing about the other applications. The present bail application was filed on 13.07.2026 as per log report and the application before the Court of Sessions was dismissed last evening itself. 3. On this aspect, learned legal aid counsel appointed by DHCLSC for the accused/applicant submits that she did not meet the accused/applicant by 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 22/08/2026 at 10:05:10 visiting her in jail, but she spoke with the jail legal aid counsel Ms. Sneha Singh, who did not inform her about the pendency of similar application before the Court of Sessions. 4. This is yet another case reflecting that the system of legal aid as being provided in the High Court needs to be revisited. Earlier also, it has been repeatedly pointed out that the system of engaging two different advocates to provide free legal aid to one accused is not just double spending from public exchequer but also a clear case of complete miscommunication between the two advocates. There is no reason for spending money on two advocates instead of engaging a single advocate, who should visit the jail and obtain instructions from the prisoner instead of the appearing advocate taking instructions from the jail advocate. In the District Courts, it is only one Advocate who is appointed by the DLSA to represent one person. 5. Copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General of this Court who shall place it before the concerned Committee for consideration. 6. In view of above circumstances, the learned legal aid counsel for the accused/applicant seeks permission to withdraw this bail application, because till this morning, the jail advocate did not inform her about pendency of the bail application before the Court of Sessions, as perhaps even jail Advocate was not aware. 7. As requested, the present bail application and the pending application are dismissed as withdrawn. GIRISH KATHPALIA, J AUGUST 21, 2026/as 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 22/08/2026 at 10:05:10