The Delhi High Court has summoned real estate tycoon Pranav Ansal in connection with allegations of threatening behaviour, providing false information, and presenting false evidence as part of a purported conspiracy. Pranav Ansal, who serves as the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited, is the son of prominent real estate figure Sushil Ansal. The court deemed there to be substantial grounds to commence proceedings against Pranav in this matter, issuing him a summons to appear on July 31.
The summons stems from a complaint lodged with Metropolitan Magistrate Devanshi Janmeja, accusing Pranav and others of pressuring the complainant, Sunil Mangal, to resign from his position within the company. Allegedly, Mangal and his spouse were also threatened with severe repercussions. Acting on the complaint, the magistrate noted that Mangal subsequently resigned from his role and filed three civil suits seeking to recover his unpaid salary. In retaliation, Pranav and others purportedly filed criminal cases against Mangal and his wife at Hanuman Temple and Hauz Khas police stations.
Also read: Congress Denies Involvement In VVPAT Petition, Responds To PM Modi’s ‘Tight Slap’ Remark
In a separate development, the High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the release of undertrial prisoners on bail to alleviate overcrowding in jails. A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora declined to entertain the petition filed by Gautam Kumar Laha, citing similar issues pending before the Supreme Court. The court deemed the petitioner’s claims unjustifiable in light of existing legal proceedings.
The petitioner’s counsel had argued that the PIL aimed to advocate for the undertrial prisoners lodged in congested jails, suggesting the formation of a committee to convene regularly and determine which prisoners could be granted bail by the appropriate court order. The Central Government, represented by Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, countered by stating that the petitioner’s concerns were already being addressed by the Supreme Court. Sharma pointed out that the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Undertrial Review Committee of the National Legal Services Authority had been endorsed by the Supreme Court back in 2018.
