dharmend er rana - district court

Case No. 8465/2016 PS Chankaya Puri Inspector Sativir Singh Vs. State 06.07.2021

Present: None has joined the proceedings via video conferencing

on behalf of the petitioner.

Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld. Addl PP for State through VC.

Proceedings done through video conferencing.

In terms of circulars No.2/R/RG/DHC/2021 dated

19/04/2021, No.5/R/RG/DHC/2021 dated 23/04/2021,

No.6/R/RG/DHC/2021 dated 14/05/2021 and No. 372/RG/DHC/2021

dated 28/06/2021 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the instant matter

is adjourned for 29.09.2021 for purpose already fixed.

Instant order be uploaded on the court website

immediately.

(Dharmender Rana) ASJ-02, NDD/PHC/New Delhi

06.07.2021

DHARMENDER RANA

Digitally signed by DHARMENDER RANA Date: 2021.07.06 12:47:21 +05'30'

Case No. 9/2017 SEBI Vs. RDPL Infrastructure Ltd. 06.07.2021


on behalf of both the parties.



19/04/2021, No.5/R/RG/DHC/2021 dated 23/04/2021,





immediately.


06.07.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


FIR No. 129/2017 PS Barakhamba Road State Vs. Sunita Bhardwaj 06.07.2021

Present: Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld. Addl PP for State through VC.

None has joined the proceedings via video conferencing

on behalf of the accused.


Issue production warrants against accused, who is/ are in

J/C, if any, for the next date of hearing.


19/04/2021, No.5/R/RG/DHC/2021 dated 23/04/2021,



is adjourned for 29.092021 for purpose already fixed.


immediately.


06.07.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


FIR No. 82/2018 PS Barakhamba Road State Vs. Sunita Bhardwaj 06.07.2021








19/04/2021, No.5/R/RG/DHC/2021 dated 23/04/2021,





immediately.


06.07.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


FIR No. 38/2020 State Vs. Sushil Shah & Ors. 06.07.2021








19/04/2021, No.5/R/RG/DHC/2021 dated 23/04/2021,





immediately.


06.07.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


FIR No. 22/2013 PS Special Cell State Vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. 06.07.2021








19/04/2021, No.5/R/RG/DHC/2021 dated 23/04/2021,





immediately.


06.07.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


FIR No. 67/2013 PS Mandir Marg State Vs. Balkishan Etc. 06.07.2021








19/04/2021, No.5/R/RG/DHC/2021 dated 23/04/2021,





immediately.


06.07.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


Case No.519/2018 Makhan Lal Jain Vs. State (Govt. NCT of Delhi) 06.07.2021


on behalf of the appellant.



Let court notice be issued to the appellant as well as to

his counsel for NDOH.

Put up for arguments on 13.09.2021.


immediately.


06.07.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


Case No.291/2019 Delhi Financial Corporation Vs. State & Ors. 06.07.2021


on behalf of the appellant.

Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for State through VC.

Sh. Vinod Malhotra, Ld. Counsel for respondent through

VC.


Ld. Counsel for respondent submit that the accused

Subhash Sharma has expired. Let court notice be issued to the

concerned SHO to verify the death of the Subhash Sharma and file

report in this regard on NDOH.

Put up for filing of verification report on 06.09.2021.


immediately.


06.07.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


Case No. 132/2020

Neeraj @ Gajni Vs. State

06.07.2021

Present: Sh. Yogesh Kumar, Ld. LAC for appellant through VC.



Issue production warrants against appellant, who is in J/C

for the next date of hearing.

Arguments heard at length.

Put up for clarification, if any/ order on 12.07.2021.


immediately.

(Dharmender Rana)

ASJ-02, NDD/PHC/New Delhi

06.07.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


FIR No. 93/2021 PS Special Cell

U/s 419/420/120B IPC & 66 IT Act State Vs. Nirmal Kumari

06.07.2021

Present: Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld. Addl PP for State through VC. IO Insp. Sajjan Singh through VC. Sh. Deepak Mehra, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused through VC.

Proceedings done through video conferencing. It is certified that link was working properly and no

grievance was agitated by either of the counsel in this regard.

Present is an application moved on behalf of

applicant/accused Nirmal Kumari for grant of bail. It is submitted that

applicant/accused, who is aged about 22 years, has been falsely

implicated in the present case and she is languishing in j.c since

02.04.2021 and she has nothing to do with the alleged offence nor

she has received any pecuniary benefit from the alleged transactions

nor she had knowledge about the alleged company. It is submitted

that applicant/accused was made the Director of the company/s

Toningworld International Pvt Ltd by forging her signatures and

documents; she has not signed any document for registration of

company nor she opened any bank account in the name of the alleged

company nor she signed any bank document. It is submitted that she

was also made director in two companies i.e. Innovash Technology

Pvt. Ltd and Microshell Technology India Pvt. Ltd by forging her

signatures. It is submitted that there are many lacunas in the

investigation conducted by the IO in the present case nor there is any

report filed on record regarding the specimen signatures of the

applicant/accused. It is further submitted that the applicant/accused

never visited Kanpur and she was always present in the Bihar for

pursuing her graduation. It is submitted that charge-sheet has already

been filed in the court and no fruitful purpose would be served by

keeping her behind the bars. It is further pointed out that till date no

victim has come forward and the only person who mailed a complaint

was not joined by the IO and even he is not alleging any fraud rather

admits that he received back some money. It is thus prayed that she

may be released on bail.

Ld. Addl. PP has vehemently opposed the bail

application arguing that applicant/accused alongwith her associates

was involved in cheating gullible citizens by inducing them to

follow/download various applications and to like certain posts on

social media by promising a payment of Rs.6 per like and then further

inducing users to opt for one of the paid VIP memberships by paying

an amount either of Rs.1,000, Rs.3,000, Rs.6,000, Rs.10,000 or

Rs.30,000, however no benefits as promised were provided to the

users and their accounts were also blocked by the accused persons.

It is submitted that the URL and App were using one Payment

Gateway PAYU and on enquiry, it was found that the connected bank

account is of alleged company M/s Toningworld International Pvt. Ltd

of which the present accused and co-accused are the Directors since

24.09.2020. It is submitted that the said bank account was operative

for only two months and in two months, the total money floated

through this bank account is Rs.1,74,27,192/- and this money was

further floated to M/s Ansol Technology in ICICI bank in Bengluru and

further to Wazirex in the form of crypto currency out of India. It is

submitted that applicant/accused is director in four more shell

companies; getting money regularly in her account through her

husband co-accused Mukesh Kumar Jha; she signed all documents,

provided her digital signatures to CA and also uploaded her own video

to Certifying Authority to get her DSC; she got Rs.5,000/- per month

per company in lieu of becoming director of these shell companies of

Chinese nationals through her husband who has received Rs.22.0

lacs from fraud companies in the month of January and February,

2021 in his bank account.

During the course of arguments, Ld. Addl. PP fairly

conceded that the applicant/accused has no direct role in the alleged

cheating or forgery. However, it is contended that she was receiving

Rs.5,000/- per month on account of she being Director of some shell

companies. It is the case of prosecution that a large scale cheating

has been committed with meticulous planning and deft execution,

number of shell companies are reported to have been opened, crores

of rupees are reported to have been siphoned off to China.

Unfortunately, it appears highly unlikely that the accused persons who

have been charge-sheeted would have managed to run the entire

show on their own. Even the role of Chartered Accountant (CA), who

helped the accused persons in creating the shell companies, seems

to have not been investigated by the IO. However, the IO assures that

due to pandemic, the role of kingpins behind the entire scam could

not be expeditiously investigated and he assures that soon the main

actors shall also be brought to book.

Be that as it may, except for the present case, the

antecedents of applicant/accused are reported to be absolutely

blemish free. It is further conceded that applicant/accused has no

direct role in the alleged offence of cheating or forgery. Considering

the nature of allegations against the applicant/accused, she being an

undergraduate housewife, her social status and the fact that charge-

sheet in the instant matter has already been filed, applicant/accused

Nirmal Kumari is admitted to bail on her furnishing PB/SB in the sum

of Rs.50,000/- subject to the satisfaction of the Ld. MM/Duty MM/Link

MM. Needless to say that nothing observed herein shall have a

bearing upon the facts of the case.

Application is disposed off accordingly.


immediately.


06.07.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


FIR No. 57/2020 PS Kishan Garh

U/s 302/307/120B/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act State Vs. Devender @ Pappu @ Dev

06.07.2021


Sh. S. P. Kaushal, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused

through VC.

Sh. Vijay Aggarwal, Ld. counsel for complainant through

VC.



Present application has been moved on behalf of the

applicant/accused seeking interim bail on medical grounds.

However, neither defence counsel nor Ld. counsel for

complainant/Addl. PP for State is able to assist the court in

deciphering the medical report annexed alongwith the report of the IO.

Accordingly, worthy Medical Superintendent, G. B Pant

Hospital is requested to depute a responsible medical expert to assist

this court in assessing the present medical condition of the

applicant/accused.

List the bail application for consideration on 07.07.2021.

Concerned IO may assist the medical expert in

attending the proceedings through video conferencing.

Copy of this order be sent to the worthy Medical

Superintendent.


06.07.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


State v. Shrishti FIR No. 226/2020 PS Crime Branch U/s 363/370(3,4)/120B/34 IPC

06.07.2021


Sh. Rohit Singh, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused

Shrishti through VC.




applicant/accused Shrishti for grant of interim bail.

Ld. Addl. PP seeks a short adjournment stating that IO

is on leave and documents are yet to be verified.

Accordingly, concerned SHO is requested to depute

some other responsible officer to verify the medical documents

furnished by the applicant/accused and file the report positively on

07.07.2021.

List the bail application for reply and arguments on

07.07.2021.

Copy of this order be sent to concerned SHO for

necessary compliance.

Till then, interim bail of applicant/accused Shrishti is

extended on the same terms and conditions as mentioned in order

dated 22.05.2021.


06.07.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


FIR No.86/2021 PS Special Cell

U/s 419/420/120B IPC State Vs. Shaikh Pintu Ali

06.07.2021


Sh. Rajesh Kabir, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused

through VC.

IOI SI Ajit present through VC.




applicant/accused Shaik Pintu Ali for grant of bail. It is submitted that he

has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is languishing in

j.c since 26.03.2021. It is submitted that applicant/accused has nothing

to do with the alleged offence; he was working in the alleged firm as a

peon for the last about 2 ½ months; the applicant/accused neither

impersonated anyone nor caused any wrongful loss to anyone nor

received any pecuniary benefit and he was totally unaware of the working

of the office. It is submitted that applicant/accused has not been named

in the FIR and the allegations that he accessed email id

[email protected] is totally false and baseless as he neither

created any such email id nor he had knowledge of any such email; there

is no incriminating evidence to connect the applicant/accused with the

commission of the alleged offence. It is submitted that charge-sheet has

been filed in the present case and no fruitful purpose would be served by

keeping him behind the bars. It is thus prayed that he may be released

on bail.

Ld. Addl. PP has vehemently opposed the bail application

arguing that applicant/accused alongwith his associates was indulged in

cheating gullible young citizen on the pretext of providing jobs; they

cheated the complainant who had applied for job and put his resume in

Indeed Career job portal from where he received calls and cheated him

for a total sum of Rs.19,74,153/- on pretext of registration fees for

mailto:[email protected]

premium services, document verification fee, top management profile fee,

fee to qualify Aptitude test, fee for seat reservation etc. It is submitted

that upon receipt of complaint, a raid was conducted and five accused

persons including the applicant/accused were arrested who were found

running a fake call centre; 15 mobile phones, 4 laptops, 3 desktop

computers and sim cards were recovered from their possession. It is

submitted that applicant/accused used to communicate with the job

seekers regarding making payment on the pretext of registration fees for

premium services, document verification fee, top management profile fee,

fee to qualify Aptitude test, fee for seat reservation etc and he was also

having access to alleged email id [email protected] and at

his instance, payment links in the name of Sandip Edu Solution Private

were provided in which the accused persons used to get transferred the

amount from the complainant/victims. It is further submitted that

applicant/accused also signed the rent agreement dated 28.07.20209 of

office space i.e. 1032B, 10th floor, Spaze IT Park, Sector -49 Sohna road,

Gurugram on behalf of BSEPL Educon(OPC) Pvt. Ltd. where the fake

call centre was running. It is submitted that investigation is still going on

and if applicant/accused is granted bail, there is every likelihood that he

may hamper the fair course of investigation.

Except for the present case,the previous criminal

antecedents of applicant/accused are reported to be blemish free. Till

date except for the complainant no other victim is reported to have been

joined by the IO. Considering the role ascribed to the applicant, grounds

of parity and period of incarceration, applicant/ accused Shaik Pintu Ali

is admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs 50,000/-

with two sureties each in the like amount subject to the satisfaction of Ld.

CMM/Duty MM/Link MM.


Needless to say that nothing observed herein shall

tantamount to an expression upon the merits of the case.

Copy of the order be given dasti.


06.07.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


mailto:[email protected]

FIR No. 270/2020 PS Special Cell

U/s 186/353/307/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act State Vs. Deepak @ Katya

06.07.2021

Present: Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld. Addl PP for State through VC. Sh. Sumeet Shokeen, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused through VC. Proceedings done through video conferencing. It is certified that link was working properly and no



applicant/accused for grant of bail.

Ld. counsel for applicant/accused seeks a short

adjournment to address arguments in the instant matter.

As prayed, list the bail application for arguments on

09.07.2021.

(Dharmender Rana) ASJ-02, NDD/PHC/New Delhi 06.07.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


State v. Chandan Jha FIR No. 10/2018 PS North Avenue U/s 302/34 IPC

06.07.2021

Present: Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld. Addl PP for State through VC. Sh. Piyush Sachdev, Ld. LAC for applicant/accused through VC.


It is certified that link was working properly and no



applicant/accused Chandan Jha for grant of interim bail for a period

of 90 days as his case is squarely covered under the guidelines dated

11.05.2021 of High Power Committee.

Ld. Addl. PP has vehemently opposed the bail

application arguing that applicant/accused alongwith his associate

Raj Saha has committed the murder of his friend with the help of

surgical blade over a petty issue of sleeping on the footpath. It is

submitted that recovery of weapon of offence i.e. surgical blade has

been effected from the applicant/accused and mobile phone of

deceased has been recovered from the possession of co-accused. It

is submitted that eye witnesses are yet to be examined who have

levelled specific allegations against the applicant/accused in their

statements u/s 161 CrPC. It is submitted that applicant/accused is

reported to have been involved in twelve other criminal cases.

In the instant matter, the applicant/accused is previously

found to be involved in twelve other criminal cases and hence, the

case of applicant/accused is not fulfilling the criteria/guidelines dated

11.05.2021 of the High Power Committee for releasing him on interim

bail during the present pandemic situation. Considering the

seriousness of allegations, enormity of charge and past criminal

antecedents of applicant/accused, I am of the opinion that he does

not deserve to be released on interim bail. His bail application is

accordingly dismissed.



immediately.


06.07.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


State v. Sanjiv Bhatnagar FIR No. 193/2020 PS EOW U/s 406/419/420/468/471/120B IPC

06.07.2021


Sh. Ashok K. Singh, Ld. counsel for applicant Sanjiv

Bhatnagar through VC.



Present is an application moved on behalf of applicant

Sanjiv Bhatnagar for grant of anticipatory bail.

At this stage, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused seeks

permission to withdraw the instant bail application with liberty to move

afresh before the court of appropriate jurisdiction.

In view of the submissions made, the instant bail

application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move afresh

before the appropriate court.


(Dharmender Rana) ASJ-02, NDD/PHC/New Delhi 06.07.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


Case No. 132/2020

Neeraj @ Gajni Vs. State

06.07.2021

Present: Sh. Yogesh Kumar, Ld. LAC for appellant through VC.



Issue production warrants against appellant, who is in J/C

for the next date of hearing.

Arguments heard at length.

Put up for clarification, if any/ order on 12.07.2021.


immediately.

(Dharmender Rana)


06.07.2021

At this stage, appellant Neeraj @ Gajni produced from J/C

and he is apprised of the court proceedings and NDOH.

(Dharmender Rana)


06.07.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


DHARMENDER RANA


IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANIL ANTIL; ASJ 04, PHC, NEW DELHI

SC No. 88/18State Vs. Aamir Sajjad & ors. FIR No. 30/17PS: Tilak Marg06.07.2021

Matter taken up through Video Conferencing from the

Residence.

Present: Sh. S.K. Kain, Additional PP for the State (through V/C).

Sh. Vaibhav Kumar, Advocate for accused Aamir Sajjad,

Bhik Chand and Krishan Verma.

In continuation of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court vide

Orders No. 256/RG/DHC/2021 dated 08.04.2021, No. 2/R/RG/DHC/2021

dated 19.04.2021, No. 5/R/RG/DHC/2021 dated 23.04.2021, No.

6/R/RG/DHC/2021 dated 14.05.2021 and 372/RG/DHC dated 28.06.2021, all

the “urgent matters” and “final arguments cases” shall be taken up through

Video Conferencing till 23.07.2021.

In view thereof, be put up on 16.10.2021 for the purpose already

fixed.

Copy of the order be given through emode to all the parties

concerned.

In addition, dasti be also given as prayed.

(Anil Antil)

ASJ04/NDD/PHC/ND 06.07.2021

IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANIL ANTIL; ASJ 04, PHC, NEW DELHI SC No. 155/17State Vs. Ghulam Rabbani FIR No. 423/16PS: IGI Airport06.07.2021


Residence.


None for the accused persons.

In view of the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court

vide notification dated 28.06.2021, the matter is adjourned for today.

Be put up for PE on 07.08.2021.

Witnesses, as per previous orders be summoned for the

next date in case the physical hearing of the courts is resumed.

(Anil Antil) ASJ04/NDD/PHC/ND

06.07.2021

IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANIL ANTIL; ASJ 04, PHC, NEW DELHI SC No. 18/19State Vs. Altaf Ali & Ors. FIR No. 620/18PS: Vasant Kunj North 06.07.2021


Residence.


None for the accused persons.

In view of the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court

vide notification dated 28.06.2021, the matter is adjourned for today.

Be put up for PE on 18.10.2021.

Witnesses, as per previous orders be summoned for the

next date in case the physical hearing of the courts is resumed.


06.07.2021


CR No. 62/19 Prakash Industries Ltd. Vs. Swiss Singapore India Pvt. Ltd. 06.07.2021

Matter taken up through Video Conferencing from the Residence.

Present: Sh. Neeraj Tiwari, Advocate for the Revisionist (through

V/C).

Sh. Kush Chaturvedi, Advocate for the Respondent

(through V/C).

During the course of proceedings, it has been informed by the

learned counsel for the respondent that the matter has amicably been settled

between the parties. However, they need some more time to withdraw the cases

pending between the parties before the Hon'ble High Court of Chhatisgarh.

At joint request, the matter is adjourned for today.

Be put up for further consideration on 18.09.2021.

TCR, if any, be sent back to the learned trial court concerned.


concerned.



06.07.2021




Present: Sh. Neeraj Tiwari, Advocate for the Revisionist (through V/C).

Sh. Kush Chaturvedi, Advocate for the Respondent (through V/C).









concerned.



06.07.2021














concerned.



06.07.2021


CR No. 71/19 V.P. Aggarwal Vs. Swiss Singapore India Pvt. Ltd. 06.07.2021












concerned.



06.07.2021


CR No. 72/19 Sunil Kumar Vs. Swiss Singapore India Pvt. Ltd. 06.07.2021












concerned.



06.07.2021


CR No. 101/19 M.R. Agarwal Vs. Swiss Singapore India Pvt. Ltd. 06.07.2021












concerned.



06.07.2021


CR No. 102/19 Purnima Gupta Ltd. Vs. Swiss Singapore India Pvt. Ltd. 06.07.2021












concerned.



06.07.2021


CR No. 103/19 Prakash Industries Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Swiss Singapore India Pvt. Ltd. 06.07.2021












concerned.



06.07.2021


CR No. 104/19Y.N. Chugh Vs. Swiss Singapore India Pvt. Ltd. 06.07.2021












concerned.



06.07.2021


CA No. 8667/16Suresh Kumar Bansal Vs. State (Delhi Administration)06.07.2021


Residence.

Present: None for the Appellant.

Sh. Kundan Kohli, SPP for the State (through V/C).

Since none is appearing on behalf of the appellant

despite repeated calls, let E notice be issued to the appellant as well

as to his counsel to appear, preferably through V/C and assist the

court on the next date of hearing.

At request, be put up for arguments/consideration on

16.10.2021.


concerned.



06.07.2021


CA No. 84/19Raman Kumar Grover Vs. Bawa Pradumman Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd.06.07.2021


Residence.

Present: Sh. Abhay Mani Tripathi, Advocate for the Appellant

(through V/C).

During the course of proceedings, it has been submitted

by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant/convict

has since expired and therefore he needs time to file his death

certificate and to take appropriate instructions in that regard.

At request, the matter is adjourned for today



concerned.



06.07.2021


CA No. 90/2020Anita Chopra & Anr. Vs. Rohini Chopra &Anr. 06.07.2021


Present: None for the Appellant.

Respondent is present (through V/C).

During proceedings, the respondent has prayed for adjournment

stating that her Advocate is unable to appear before this court as assist as he is

busy in some other court today.

Since none is appearing on behalf of the appellant despite

repeated calls, let E notice be also issued to the appellant as well as to her

counsel to appear, preferably through V/C and assist the court on the next date

of hearing.

In view of the request so made, the matter is adjourned for today.

Be put up for arguments/consideration on 11.10.2021.


concerned.



06.07.2021


SC No. 115/21State Vs. KeshavFIR No. 430/2020PS: Vasant Kunj North U/s. 365/354/34 IPC06.07.2021

This is an application filed under Section 439 Cr. PC on

behalf of the applicant/accused Keshav for grant of regular bail.


Residence.


Sh. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the applicant/accused

(through V/C).

IO SI Hemant is also present (through V/C).

During proceedings, IO submitted that recently i.e. day

before yesterday, only Bank of Baroda at Gurgaon has provided the

ATM locations and pursuant thereto a notice under Section 91 Cr.

PC has been issued to Axis Bank, Gannaur Branch, Haryana to

provide the CCTV footage of the incident, which would take two

weeks time to receive the said report.

At the request of learned Additional PP as also the IO,

the matter is adjourned for today.

Be put up on 13.07.2021 for further consideration.

In the meantime, a detailed report with regard to the

CCTV footage be filed by the IO on or before the next date of

hearing.


concerned.



06.07.2021


State Vs. Najuel Haque FIR No. 121/18PS: Special CellU/s. 18/29 NDPS Act 06.07.2021


Residence.


Ms. Anjali Rajput, Advocate for the applicant/accused

(through V/C).

By virtue of filing the present application, applicant Najuel

Haque is seeking extension of interim bail granted to him vide order

dated 06.05.2021 by this court on medical grounds, stating that he is

under treatment and it shall require about eight weeks or so for the

further treatment of his ailment. Medical documents have also been

filed in support of the present application.

Heard.

Taking note of the medical condition of the applicant as

well as the prevailing grim situation due to outbreak of Corona Virus,

the interim bail already granted to the applicant/accused Najuel

Haque is extended till 31.08.2021 on the same terms and conditions.

The application accordingly stands disposed of as

allowed.

Ordered accordingly.

In the meantime, verification of the medical documents be

also filed by the IO on or before the next date of hearing.

Copy of the order be given through emode to all the

parties concerned.

Copy of the order be also sent to the applicant/accused

through concerned Superintendent Jail for information.


The order be also uploaded on the official website of the

court.

Proceedings were conducted through video conferencing

and there was no complaint of any technical glitches nor there was

any grievance regarding the audio or video transmission.


06.07.2021


State Vs. Devender Singh FIR No. 373/2020PS: Vasant Kunj North U/s. 394/397/411 IPC06.07.2021


Residence.


Sh. Sonu Jha, Advocate for the applicant/accused

(through V/C).

IO ASI Shiv Lal is also present (through V/C).

By virtue of filing the present application under Section

439 Cr. PC, applicant Devender Singh is seeking extension of interim

bail for a period of 60 days, stating that he was not able to get

treatment for his medical ailments due to closure of OPDs and non

performance of surgeries in the hospitals pursuant to the outbreak of

Covid19 Pandemic. Medical documents have also been filed in

support of the present application.

Heard.

Taking note of the medical condition of the applicant as

well as the grim situation which as arisen due to outbreak of deadly

Corona Virus, the interim bail already granted to the

applicant/accused Devender Singh is extended for a period of four

weeks from today on the same terms and conditions.

The application accordingly stands disposed of as

allowed.


However, it is specified that there shall not be further

extension of the interim bail on the same grounds.


parties concerned.




court.






06.07.2021


State Vs. Pradeep Kumar FIR No. 373/20PS: Vasant Kunj North U/s. 411/397/342 IPC06.07.2021

This is an application filed under Section 439 Cr. PC on

behalf of the applicant/accused Pradeep Kumar for grant of bail.


Residence.


Sh. Suneel Kumar, Advocate for the applicant/accused

(through V/C).

IO ASI Shiv Lal is also present (through V/C).

During proceedings, on the strong objections by the

learned Additional PP, the learned counsel for the applicant

submitted that he does not want to press the present application at

this stage of the case and therefore seeks permission to withdraw

the same.

In view of the request so made, the application

accordingly stands disposed of as withdrawn.



parties concerned.




court.






06.07.2021


Bail Application No. 1302/21Ashok Madan Vs DGGIFile No. 587/CE/138/POL/2019/PT PS: R.K. Puram U/s. 132 CGST Act06.07.2021

This is the second application filed under Section 438 Cr.

PC on behalf of the applicant/accused Ashok Madan for grant of

anticipatory bail, the first being dismissed vide detailed order dated

08.03.2021.


Residence.

Present: Sh. Pratyaksh Gupta, Advocate for the applicant (through

V/C).

Sh. Ms. Pooja Bhaskar, Advocate is present on behalf of

learned SPP Sh. Satish Aggarwala for the

Department/Respondent (through V/C).

During proceedings, on the strong objection by the

learned SPP qua the maintainability of the present application, the

learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he does not want to

press the application and therefore seeks permission to withdraw the

same.

In view of the request so made, the application

accordingly stands disposed of as withdrawn.



parties concerned.


court.






06.07.2021


CA No. 55/21Dheeraj Varma Vs. Mandeep Kaur & Ors.

06.07.2021Fresh Criminal Appeal under Section 29 of the Protection

of Women from Domestic Violence Act against the impugned interim

order dated 26.03.2021 passed by the learned MM, PHC, New Delhi,

received by assignment by the orders passed by the learned District

& Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. It be checked

and registered.


Residence.

Present: Sh. Pulkit Srivastava, Advocate for the Appellant (through

V/C).

Heard. Record perused.

Let, notice of the appeal be issued to the respondents on

filing of PF & RC, Speed Post and approved Courier for the next date

of hearing.

Steps be taken within two weeks from today.

Appellant is also at liberty to serve the respondents

through electronic mode and an affidavit in this regard be also filed in

court on or before the next date of hearing.

Reply, if any, be filed by the respondents within one

month from the date of receipt of the notice with advance copy to

opposite side.

Be put up for arguments/consideration on 16.10.2021.

In the meantime, TCR be also summoned one day prior

to the next date of hearing.

Copy of the order be sent along with the summons for

compliance.


06.07.2021


Bail Application No. 1337/21CDR. Kalesh Mohanan Vs. StateFIR No. Not known PS: Tilak MargU/s. Not known

06.07.2021This is an application filed under Section 438 Cr. PC on

behalf of the applicant/accused Cdr. Kalesh Mohanan for grant of

anticipatory bail.

Matter taken up from through Video Conferencing from the

Residence.


Sh. Krishan Kumar, Ld. counsel for complainant (through

V/C).

Ms. Shivani Luthra Lohiya, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused

(through V/C).

Due to some technical glitches order could not be prepared.

Put up for orders on 07072021 at 2.00 PM.


06.07.2021

1/4 Bail Application No.1313/2021

Manav Arora Vs. State FIR No.173/2021

PS : Naraina U/s: 419/420/120B/34 IPC, 20/20A/21 IT Act & 6 IWTA

& 66C/66D IT Act06.07.2021

Vide order No.9871-9900/Bail & Filing/Judl./Prin.D&SJ/NDD/2021 dated30.04.2021, the undersigned has been deputed for duty today to hear and dispose of freshbail/urgent criminal applications and pending bail applications pertaining to New DelhiDistrict Sessions Division through video-conferencing mode in accordance with law.

This is an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, moved on behalf of theapplicant/accused namely Manav Arora.

Present: None.

The bail application is fixed for pronouncement of order today as arguments have

already been heard.

ORDER:-

1. The factual matrix of the present case is that on 03.06.2021, a raid was conducted in

pursuance of secret information that an illegal international call centre is being operated at A-9/1,

Ground Floor, Naraina Industrial Area, which is involved in calling and cheating UK (United

Kingdom) citizens on the pretext of income tax discrepancies found in tax audit. It is further

submitted that 21 persons were found to be present and working in the said centre, and digital

instruments etc. used by these persons were seized along with other material.

2. While refuting the allegations levelled, Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused had

submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is a student of B.Com

second year, was merely kept as a trainee there for the last 20 days, and his salary of about

Rs.8000/10,000/- was also not paid. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused had further submitted

that he is seeking bail on the ground of parity as 13 persons working in the said call centre and

assigned role of ‘telecallers,’ one supervisor, one bouncer-cum-caretaker and one small ‘blocker’ ,

have already been enlarged on bail. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused had further submitted that

without any basis/material, investigating agency has assigned the above mentioned role of ‘closure’

to the applicant, there being no such appointment letter, applicant was not assigned the nature of job

and there is no material that applicant was a beneficiary in any manner. Ld. Counsel for the

2/4

applicant/accused had further submitted that the applicant does not possess sufficient qualification

to perform the alleged role of ‘closure’ assigned to him. He had further submitted that the applicant

is not well-versed in English speaking and that too in UK accent and this fact clearly reveals that

investigating agency has wrongly assigned role of alleged ‘closure’ to the applicant for falsely

implicating him in the present case. He had also submitted that even as per the reply of the IO, it

were the telecallers who impersonated and threatened the victims, and then the ‘closures’ used to

allegedly settle the account with the victim, and hence the role assigned to the present applicant is

on a lesser footing than that of a ‘telecaller’. He has further submitted that there is no

complaint/statement of any victim qua any loss caused to him/her, or that the applicant/accused had

cheated him. He had further submitted that there is no dishonest intention to cheat anyone. Ld.

Counsel for applicant/accused had submitted that the accused is a young boy of 20 years. Ld.

Counsel for the applicant/accused has further submitted that the sections 20/20A/21 IT Act & 6

IWT Act invoked are bailable in nature and the only non-bailable section invoked is Section 420

IPC and in view of judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of

Bihar’, the applicant/accused is entitled for bail. He has accordingly prayed that the

applicant/accused may be enlarged on bail.

3. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for State assisted with the IO, had strongly opposed the bail

application on the grounds of the nature & gravity of offences and the alleged role of the

applicant/accused. He had further submitted that all the accused persons, in pursuance of their

criminal conspiracy, were engaged in the use of illegal techniques i.e. VOIP calling and bypassing

the Legal International Long Distance (ILD) Gateways, thus causing wrongful loss to Government

Exchequer and wrongful gain to themselves. He had further submitted that the Department of

Telecommunication has inspected the spot and the report qua loss caused to exchequer by use of

said techniques, is awaited. Ld. Addl. PP had further explained that the call centre used to cheat the

UK citizens by usually beginning with an impersonated pre-recorded threatening robo-call from

HMRC (Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs) department UK Govt., and telling the recipient UK

residents that a serious tax/fraud/tax evasion criminal case has been registered in their name and

then asking them to connect via IVR. He had further submitted that the victims would get

frightened with said invasive message and would press 1 (one) on IVR under the impression that

they would be connected to the genuine HMRC department, but eventually they got connected to

any one of the 13 present scam centre ‘telecallers’, who impersonated themselves as UK HMCR

department officials and threatened the victims over phone by saying that since there is a due of

3/4

severe tax violations in their names, they would be arrested by UK law enforcement officials soon.

For evading the arrest, victims were given an option of settlement by paying a one time certain fine

amount. He had further submitted that when threatened, victims got ready to pay the said fine, and

their call was now transferred to the ‘closures’ (four in the present scam centre, namely, Abhishek,

Manav, Keshav and Ajay), who impersonated themselves as court house officials. The closures

were well versed with the UK banking financial system and its modes of transferring money online

from one UK account to another. The role of closures, was to convey UK bank account/wallet

details to victims, anyhow extort from them as much amount possible and further to convey every

successful cheated amount transaction to their owners Sarabjit and Sagarika Bala.

4. Ld. Addl. PP for State had further submitted that the role of the present applicant

Manav Arora is different from that of a telecaller as he was one of the main ‘closure’ of the present

call scam centre, who used to finalize the deal with the victims and used to tell the victims to

transfer money to foreign payment gateways/banks. He had further submitted that as per

April/May, 2021 excel sheet record recovered from computers of present scam centre, role of

present accused Manav Arora is specified as that of a closure and his share is mentioned as

Rs.2,43,100/-.

5. IO had submitted that the investigation is at initial stage, co-accused/owner/main

kingpin of said call centre namely Sarabjit Singh is yet to be arrested, the source of procuring the

data of UK residents/victims, UK bank accounts/wallets used to receive cheated amount, is yet to be

unearthed and financial trail of cheated amount is yet to be established. He had also submitted that

large number of victims were cheated by the accused persons and 10-12 victims have been

identified, but in spite of requests by the investigating agency, they have not given their statements

due to the fear that it can be another scam and have requested the investigating agency to route the

request for participating in the investigation through UK police. The mobile phone locations of the

accused persons during the transactions period indicate their presence in the said call centre at the

relevant point of time and further incriminate them.

6. During the course of arguments, Ld. Addl. PP had further submitted that Section

120B IPC has been invoked in the matter and the applicant was in conspiracy with other co-accused

persons, and will also be liable for the criminal acts committed by said accused persons, pursuant to

the conspiracy. He has further submitted that sections 467/468/471 IPC have also been invoked

now, as forged NBWs were sent to victims by ‘closures’ and accused Sagarika, and after settlement,

the same were cancelled.

4/4

7. Prima facie the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused that the

alleged role of the applicant/accused as ‘closure’ was similar or on a lesser footing than 13

telecallers and 3 other accused already granted bail, does not appear to be correct as the closures

were holding higher position and they impersonated themselves as court officials, negotiated the

settlement amount and directed the victims to deposit the said amount in particular banks.

Furthermore, merely because no specific statement of any victim has been recorded, it cannot be

said at this stage that there was no loss to any victim. The amounts deposited by the victims was

allegedly routed by the blocker, (after deducting his share/commission), to the main accused

Sarabjit Singh and Sagarika Bala and the applicant also used to receive commission and the

aforesaid specific commission paid to the applicant has been found mentioned in the excel sheet of

the computer of the said call centre and the said record was maintained during the course of the

transactions and it cannot be said that the said excel sheet would not be admissible in evidence.

Furthermore the offences committed involve a large number of technicalities and cooperation of the

victims, who are foreign citizens and the authorities of the said country, which is time consuming

and during further investigation, additional evidence is likely to be collected against the accused

persons, including the applicant. The investigation is still in progress, section 120B IPC has been

invoked in the matter and thus the applicant would be liable for acts of the other accused persons

committed in pursuance of the conspiracy. Also the applicant was allegedly found present at the

time of the raid and was also a member of the WhatsApp group qua transactions with the owners

whereas telecallers were not a part of the said group. Section 467 IPC has been invoked in the

matter now and thus the case of the applicant would not be covered by the judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar: AIR 2014 SC 2756, (2014) 8 SCC

273. The commission of the alleged offences have international ramifications and may show India

in poor light. In view of these facts & circumstances and on the aforesaid submissions of Ld. Addl.

PP for State and the IO, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for grant of bail to

the applicant at this stage. Accordingly application is dismissed and disposed of. Dasti to all

concerned.

Bail application file be consigned to the Record Room.

(Ashutosh Kumar) Roster Judge/ASJ-01/Special Court POCSO

NDD/PHC/ND/06.07.2021/D

1/4Bail Application No.1346/21

Sarabjit Singh Vs. State FIR No.173/2021


& 66C/66D IT Act06.07.2021


This is an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, moved onbehalf of the applicant/accused namely Sarabjit Singh.

Present: None.

The anticipatory bail application is fixed for pronouncement of order today as

arguments have already been heard.

ORDER:-

1. The factual matrix of the present case is that on 03.06.2021, a raid was conducted in






2 While refuting the allegations levelled, Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused had

submitted that the accused has nothing to do with the alleged offence. He had further submitted that

as far as balance of Rs.1.6 crores in the account of the applicant is concerned, same is proceed of his

business of mobile phones and he has transactions of about Rs.35/40 lakhs in cash from the said

business in his account. He had further submitted that the applicant/accused is willing to join the

investigation and provide his ITRs in relation to said balance amount in his bank account. Ld.

Counsel for the applicant/accused had submitted that the investigating agency had verified the

documents qua the ownership of the place where the said call centre was allegedly being run and

that the applicant was neither the owner nor the tenant of the said premises. He had further

submitted that the trail of the alleged cheat amount has not been found in investigation. He had also

2/4

submitted that no overt act qua any false representation to any of the victims was done by the

applicant/accused. He had accordingly prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant/accused.


























4 Ld. Addl. PP for State had further submitted that the applicant Sarabjit Singh is the

main owner of the said call centre and used to look after the overall functioning of the call centre.

He had further submitted that the cheated amount, converted to Indian currency by their blockers,

used to be received by him and his partner Sagarika Bala. He had further submitted that during

investigation, it has transpired that some portion of the cheated amount received by the present

3/4

applicant in cash used to be deposited by him in his Axis bank account and his said account with

Axis Bank shows receiving of approximately Rs.1.6 crores in the year 2021, mostly through cash

deposit. He had further submitted that his mobile location is constantly at place of the present scam

centre.

5 IO had submitted that the applicant/accused Sarabjit is the main kingpin/owner of the

said call centre, absconding co-accused Saurabh Gupta (blocker, who used to provide UK bank

accounts to present scam centre on receiving cheated amount) is yet to be arrested, the source of

procuring the data of UK residents/victims, UK bank accounts/wallets used to receive cheated

amount, is yet to be unearthed and financial trail of cheated amount is yet to be established. He had

further submitted that possibility of hawala transactions involved in the operation of present scam

centre is also to be explored. He had also submitted that the applicant is the main member of

alleged scam centre WhatsApp groups namely Prabh Accounts & MSDD2, which contains

incriminating details of cheated amount, crime methodology, roles of accused. Etc. and the contents

of this group chat are to be questioned from the applicant, the investigation is at initial stage and if

the applicant/accused is granted anticipatory bail, he may hamper the investigation.

6 During the course of arguments, Ld. Addl. PP had further submitted that Section



the conspiracy. He had further submitted that sections 467/468/471 IPC have also been invoked



7 Merely because no specific statement of any victim has been recorded, it cannot be


allegedly routed by the blocker (after deducting his share/commission), to the main accused Sarabjit

Singh and Sagarika Bala and the closures also used to receive commission and the aforesaid

specific commission paid to the closures has been found mentioned in the excel sheet of the

computer of the said call centre and the said record was maintained during the course of the






4/4


committed in pursuance of the conspiracy. Applicant was also a member of the WhatsApp group

qua transactions with the co-owners and closures, whereas telecallers were not a part of the said

group. The commission of the alleged offences have international ramifications and may show India


PP for State and the IO, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for grant of

anticipatory bail to the applicant and custodial interrogation of the applicant appears to be necessary

for the purposes of investigation as stated by the IO. Accordingly application is dismissed and

disposed of. Dasti to all concerned.



NDD/PHC/ND/06.07.2021/D


Abhishek Singh Vs. State FIR No.173/2021


& 66C/66D IT Act06.07.2021


This is an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, moved on behalf of theapplicant/accused namely Abhishek Singh.

Present: None.


already been heard.

ORDER:-1. The factual matrix of the present case is that on 03.06.2021, a raid was conducted in







submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case, he is 10 th passed and no

salary was paid to him. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused had further submitted that he is

seeking bail on the ground of parity as 13 persons working in the said call centre and assigned role

of ‘telecallers,’ one supervisor, one bouncer-cum-caretaker and one small ‘blocker’, have already

been enlarged on bail. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused had further submitted that without any

basis/material, investigating agency has assigned the above mentioned role of ‘closure’ to the

applicant, there being no such appointment letter, applicant was not assigned the nature of job and

there is no material that applicant was a beneficiary in any manner. Ld. Counsel for the

applicant/accused had further submitted that the applicant does not possess sufficient qualification

to perform the alleged role of ‘closure’ assigned to him. He had further submitted that the applicant

2/4

is not well-versed in English speaking and that too in UK accent and this fact clearly reveals that

investigating agency has wrongly assigned role of alleged ‘closure’ to the applicant for falsely

implicating him in the present case. He had also submitted that even as per the reply of the IO, it

were the telecallers who impersonated and threatened the victims, and then the ‘closures’ used to

allegedly settle the account with the victim, and hence the role assigned to the present applicant is

on a lesser footing than that of a ‘telecaller’. He had further submitted that there is no

complaint/statement of any victim qua any loss caused to him/her, or that the applicant/accused had

cheated him. Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused had submitted that the accused is a young boy of 26

years. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused had further submitted that the evidence is documentary

in nature and the same is not under the domain and control of the applicant. Ld. Counsel for the

applicant/accused has further submitted that the sections 20/20A/21 IT Act & 6 IWT Act invoked

are bailable in nature and only non-bailable section invoked is Section 420 IPC and in view of

judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar’, the

applicant/accused is entitled for bail. He has accordingly prayed that the applicant/accused may be

enlarged on bail.


















3/4









4 Ld. Addl. PP for State had further submitted that the role of the present applicant

Abhishek Singh is different from that of a telecaller as he was one of the main ‘closure’ of present

call scam centre, who used to finalize the deal with the victims and used to tell the victims to

transfer money in foreign payment gateways/banks. He had further submitted that as per

April/May, 2021, excel sheet record recovered from computers of present scam centre, role of

present accused Abhishek Singh is specified that of a ‘closure’ and his share is mentioned as

Rs.5,75,107/-.

5 IO had submitted that the investigation is at initial stage, co-accused/owner/main
















4/4



























concerned.



NDD/PHC/ND/06.07.2021/D


Ajay Vs. State FIR No.173/2021


& 66C/66D IT Act06.07.2021


This is an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, moved on behalf of theapplicant/accused namely Ajay.

Present: None.


already been heard.

ORDER:-1. The factual matrix of the present case is that on 03.06.2021, a raid was conducted in







submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case, he was merely working

there. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused had further submitted that he is seeking bail on the

ground of parity as 13 persons working in the said call centre and assigned role of ‘telecallers,’ one

supervisor, one bouncer-cum-caretaker and one small ‘blocker’, have already been enlarged on

bail. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused had further submitted that without any basis/material,

investigating agency has assigned the above mentioned role of ‘closure’ to the applicant, there being

no such appointment letter, applicant was not assigned the nature of job and there is no material that

applicant was a beneficiary in any manner. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused had further

submitted that the applicant does not possess sufficient qualification to perform the alleged role of

2/4

‘closure’ assigned to him. He had further submitted that the applicant is not well-versed in English

speaking and that too in UK accent and this fact clearly reveals that investigating agency has

wrongly assigned role of alleged ‘closure’ to the applicant for falsely implicating him in the present

case. He had also submitted that even as per the reply of the IO, it were the telecallers who

impersonated and threatened the victims, and then the ‘closures’ used to allegedly settle the account

with the victim, and hence the role assigned to the present applicant is on a lesser footing than that

of a ‘telecaller’. He had further submitted that there is no complaint/statement of any victim qua

any loss caused to him/her, or that the applicant/accused had cheated him. Ld. Counsel for

applicant/accused had submitted that the accused is a young boy of 24 years. Ld. Counsel for the

applicant/accused had further submitted that it is a well settled principle that the bail is the rule and

jail is exception. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused had further submitted that the sections

20/20A/21 IT Act & 6 IWT Act invoked are bailable in nature and only non-bailable section

invoked is Section 420 IPC and in view of judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

‘Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar’, the applicant/accused is entitled for bail. He had accordingly

prayed that the applicant/accused may be enlarged on bail.


















3/4









4 Ld. Addl. PP for State had further submitted that the role of the present applicant

Ajay is different from that of a telecaller as he was one of the main ‘closure’ of present call scam

centre, who used to finalize the deal with the victims and used to tell the victims to transfer money

in foreign payment gateways/banks. He had further submitted that as per April/May, 2021, excel

sheet record recovered from computers of present scam centre, role of present accused Ajay is

specified that of a closure and his share is mentioned as Rs.3,43,770/-.

5 IO had submitted that the investigation is at initial stage, co-accused/owner/main


















4/4

























concerned.



NDD/PHC/ND/06.07.2021/D


Sagarika Bala Vs. State FIR No.173/2021


& 66C/66D IT Act06.07.2021


This is an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, moved on behalf of theapplicant/accused namely Sagarika Bala.

Present: None.


already been heard.

ORDER:-1 The factual matrix of the present case is that on 03.06.2021, a raid was conducted in







submitted that the applicant/accused is a young girl of 25 years of age and has been falsely

implicated in the present case as the co-accused Sarabjit Singh is the boyfriend of the

applicant/accused and since the applicant was not having good financial condition, therefore the co-

accused Sarabjit Singh helped her. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused had further submitted that

it is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in a cheating case that the complainant has to be the

person who was cheated, which is not the case herein. He had further submitted that

applicant/accused has nothing to do with the alleged scam. He had further submitted that there is

nothing on record to connect the applicant/accused with the present offences. He had further

submitted that the applicant/accused is no more required for further questioning in the

present matter and she is willing to join the investigation as when required. Ld. Counsel for the

2/4

applicant/accused has further submitted that the sections 20/20A/21 IT Act & 6 IWT Act invoked

are bailable in nature and only bailable whereas the only non-bailable section invoked is Section

420 IPC and in view of judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Arnesh Kumar Vs.

State of Bihar’, the applicant/accused is entitled for bail. He had accordingly prayed that the

applicant/accused may be enlarged on bail.


























4 Ld. Addl. PP for State had further submitted that the accused is the co-owner of said

3/4

call centre with main absconding accused Sarabjit Singh and looked after over all functioning of the

said call centre. He had further submitted that the alleged accused Sarabjit used to transfer share of

present applicant in her Axis Bank account and her bank account statement revealed receiving of

approximately Rs.16 lakhs from the Axis Bank account of Sarabjit in the year 2021. He had further

submitted that the cheated amount converted into Indian currency by their blockers, used to be

received by them.

5 IO had submitted that the applicant/accused Sagarika Bala is the main partner of

kingpin absconding accused Sarabjit Singh, investigation is at initial stage, the source of procuring

the data of UK residents/victims, UK bank accounts/wallets used to receive cheated amount, is yet

to be unearthed and financial trail of cheated amount is yet to be established. The mobile phone

location of the accused persons during the transactions period indicate their presence in the said call

centre at the relevant point of time and further incriminate them.







7 Merely because no specific statement of any victim has been recorded, it cannot be


allegedly routed by the blocker (after deducting his share/commission), to the main accused Sarabjit

Singh and Sagarika Bala and the closures also used to receive commission and the aforesaid

specific commission paid to the closures has been found mentioned in the excel sheet of the

computer of the said call centre and the said record was maintained during the course of the







committed in pursuance of the conspiracy. Also the applicant was allegedly found present and

moving at the time of the raid and was also a member of the WhatsApp group qua transactions with

4/4

the main owner and closures, whereas telecallers were not a part of the said group. Section 467 IPC

has been invoked in the matter now and thus the case of the applicant would not be covered by the

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar: AIR 2014 SC

2756, (2014) 8 SCC 273. The commission of the alleged offences have international ramifications

and may show India in poor light. In view of these facts & circumstances and on the aforesaid

submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for State and the IO, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit

case for grant of bail to the applicant at this stage. Accordingly application is dismissed and

disposed of. Dasti to all concerned.



NDD/PHC/ND/06.07.2021/D

1) Bail Application No.1375/2021Om Prakash Vs. State

2) Bail Application No.1400/2021Gulshan Yadav Vs. State

FIR No.196/2021PS : Inderpuri

U/s: 308/427/34 IPC06.07.2021


These two applications u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, moved on behalf of theapplicants/accused namely Om Prakash & Gulshan Yadav, are pending.

Present: Sh. Sachin Bansal, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused (through VC).Sh. Yadvender Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for State (through VC).Sh. Jitender Ratta, Ld. Counsel for the victims (through VC).IO/SI Jai Singh (through VC).

Pursuant to previous order, further status report has been filed by the IO.

Heard. Perused.

Inspite of direction vide previous order, the IO has not obtained the MLC of the

injured. It is brought to my notice that out of the two injured, MLC of one of the injured was

prepared. The said injured had received injuries i.e. lacerated wound (2x1 cm) on left & right side

of occipital region and abrasion on left knee (1x1 cm). Merely because the concerned doctor is not

giving the opinion on the MLC of the injured or the IO has not been able to obtain the same, the bail

applications of the applicants cannot be kept pending indefinitely. The applicants/accused are stated

to be in custody since 28.06.2021.

To my specific query, IO has admitted that no other criminal case is pending against

the applicants/accused and that they are no longer needed for any further questioning.

Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld. Counsel for the victims have strongly opposed the bail

applications on the ground of nature of the offences and the alleged injuries received by the victims.

They have further submitted that one of the co-accused, who is son of one of the applicants/accused

Om Prakash and brother of applicant/accused Gulshan Yadav, is yet to be arrested. To my specific

query, IO has admitted that the injured was discharged from the hospital on the same day of the

incident. To my further specific query, IO submits that he knows the name and address of the co-

accused but NBWs against him have not been obtained, although the said co-accused has not joined

the investigation and is absconding. In my considered opinion, the matter requires indulgence of

DCP concerned. Hence, copy of the order be sent to the DCP concerned to look into the matter as to

why the IO has not obtained the NBW of the co-accused in spite of the fact that he has not joined

the investigation and is absconding.

Considering the totality of aforesaid facts & circumstances, the applicants are

ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one

surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Ld. MM/Duty MM/Link MM.

However it is made clear that the applicants shall not try to contact, influence, threaten or pressurize

the victims or other material witnesses and shall not tamper with the evidence and in case it is prima

facie brought to the notice of the Court that the applicants are violating the said terms, their bail will

be liable to be cancelled.

Applications are accordingly disposed of. Dasti to all concerned.

E-copy of this order be also sent to the applicants (through concerned Jail

Superintendent) as well as to the concerned Ld. MM/Duty MM/Link MM for information and

compliance.

Bail application files be consigned to Record Room.

This Court is satisfied qua audio & video connectivity of the video conference

hearing.


NDD/PHC/ND/06.07.2021/D

Bail Application No.1311/2021Akash Jain Vs. State

FIR No.219/2021PS : Sagarpur

U/s: 420/188/120B IPC, 3 Epidemic Disease Act, 51 Disaster Management Act & 18(1)(A)/27 Drug & Cosmetic Act

06.07.2021Vide order No.9871-9900/Bail & Filing/Judl./Prin.D&SJ/NDD/2021 dated

30.04.2021, the undersigned has been deputed for duty today to hear and dispose of freshbail/urgent criminal applications and pending bail applications pertaining to New DelhiDistrict Sessions Division through video-conferencing mode in accordance with law.

This application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, moved on behalf of theapplicant/accused namely Akash Jain, is pending.

Present: Sh. Ujjwal Puri, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused (through VC).Sh. Yadvender Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for State (through VC).ACP concerned Sh. Abhinendra Jain (through VC).IO/ASI Krishan Kumar (through VC).

Pursuant to previous order, vide which the copy of the previous order was sent to the

Commissioner of Police, the DCP concerned has filed the reply. Further status report has also been

filed under the signature of IO/ASI Krishan Kumar. At request, e-copies thereof be supplied to the

Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused.

Heard. Perused.

ACP concerned has submitted that needful in terms of previous order of this Court

has been done and NBW against co-accused Rishi has been obtained.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that since the chargesheet in the

matter has been filed, therefore the present bail application may be dismissed as withdrawn and the

applicant/accused shall file the bail application before the Ld. Trial Court. Ordered accordingly.

Application stands disposed of. Dasti to all concerned.


hearing.


NDD/PHC/ND/06.07.2021/D

Bail Application No.1582/20 Praveen Shivani Vs. State


U/s: 420/406/120B/174A/34 IPC06.07.2021


This application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, moved on behalf of theapplicant/accused namely Praveen Shivani, is pending.

Present: Sh. Manish Sharma, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused (through VC).Sh. Yadvender Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for State (through VC).SI S.P. Samaria on behalf of IO/SHO concerned (through VC).

E-reply of IO has already been filed.

Heard. Perused.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that the matter is pending before

the mediation centre but in spite of efforts, the next date fixed there could not be ascertained. In

view of the same, issue e-notice to the mediation centre to apprise this Court as to what is the next

date fixed in the matter there w.r.t. this case.

Issue e-notice to the complainant/victim through IO/SHO concerned for NDOH.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that the interim bail of co-

accused has been extended till 06.08.2021. IO to apprise about the status of the same on NDOH.

Interim order is extended on the same terms & conditions till NDOH.

Re-notify on 06.08.2021, awaiting outcome of the mediation proceedings. Dasti to

all concerned.


hearing.


NDD/PHC/ND/06.07.2021/D

Bail Application No.1412/2021Keshav Garg Vs. State

FIR No.173/2021PS : Naraina

U/s: 420 IPC06.07.2021


This is an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, moved on behalf of theapplicant/accused namely Keshav Garg, is pending.

Present: Sh. Umesh Kapoor, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused (through VC).Sh. Yadvender Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for State (through VC).IO/Insp. Arun Chauhan, Cyber Cell, West District, Delhi (through VC).

E-reply of IO/Insp. Arun Chauhan has been filed.

Heard. Perused.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused seeks short adjournment to verify the status of

the other similar case pending against the applicant/accused and to apprise this Court about the

same.

Re-notify on 09.07.2021. All concerned to join hearing on NDOH.


hearing.


NDD/PHC/ND/06.07.2021/D

Bail Application No.1413/2021 Ajeet Kumar Vs. State


U/s: 379/411 IPC06.07.2021


This is an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, moved on behalf of theapplicant/accused namely Ajeet Kumar.

Present: Sh. Raghuraj Singh, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused (through VC).Sh. Yadvender Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for State (through VC).IO/HC Sumer Singh (through VC).

E-reply of IO has been filed.

Heard. Perused.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that allegedly one stolen

motorcycle was recovered from the possession of the applicant/accused pertaining to this case.

The applicant/accused is in custody since 17.06.2021 and has already spent 19 days

in JC. IO has admitted that no other criminal case is pending against the applicant/accused and that

he is no longer needed for any further questioning.

Considering the totality of aforesaid facts & circumstances, the applicant/accused is

ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety

in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Ld. MM/Duty MM/Link MM.

The bail application is accordingly disposed of. Dasti to all concerned.

E-copy of this order be sent to the concerned Ld. MM/Duty MM/Link MM for

information and compliance.

Bail application file be consigned to record room.


hearing.


NDD/PHC/ND/06.07.2021/D

SC No. 175/2020NCB Vs Eze Naduka Bonaventure & Anr.

06.07.2021

Pursuant to orders of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi No. 5/R/RG/DHC/2021

dated 23.04.2021, order No. 6/R/RG/DHC/2021 dated 14.05.2021 and order No.

372/RG/DHC dated 28.06.2021, the present case is adjourned en bloc for

06.09.2021.

(Ajay Kumar Jain) Spl. Judge, NDPS/N. Delhi

06.07.2021

SC No. 438/2019FIR No. 57/2019PS Spl Cell State Vs Mohd Sufiyan & Ors.

06.07.2021




06.09.2021.


06.07.2021

SC No. 8719/2016NCB Vs Lebogang Elizabeth Sibiya

06.07.2021




06.09.2021.


06.07.2021

SC No. 9433/16FIR No. 453/2014PS SagarpurState Vs Ajay Kumar

06.07.2021




06.09.2021.


06.07.2021

SC No. 9562/16FIR No. 70/16PS Crime BranchState Vs Deepak Singh & Ors.

06.07.2021




06.09.2021.


06.07.2021

SC No. 396/18CBN Vs Harish Chander & Ors.

06.07.2021




06.09.2021.


06.07.2021

SC No. 83/2020NCB Vs Nwnkwo Sunday Josiah

06.07.2021




06.09.2021.


06.07.2021

CA No. 10/2021Amrita Tiwari Vs Vivek Choubey & Ors.

06.07.2021

Present: Sh. Sushant Mukund Ld. Counsel for appellant through VC.

Sh. Hemand Arya, Ld. Counsel for respondents through VC.

At request, list the matter for arguments on 22.07.2021.


06.07.2021

FIR No. 252/2020PS Spl CellU/s 21/29/61/85 NDPS ActState Vs Paramjeet Singh & Anr.

06.07.2021

Present: Sh Ravindra Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State through VC.

Accused Ashwani produced from JC through VC.

Ms Aishwarya Dwivedi, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused Ashwani

through VC.

Accused submits that Ms Aishwarya Dwivedi is his counsel and

requested that copy of charge sheet be provided to Ms Aishwarya Dwivedi.

Accordingly, Ahlmad is directed to supply the copy of charge sheet to

Ms Aishwarya Dwivedi, Ld. counsel for accused against proper identification and

acknowledgement.

Application disposed of.

Copy of the order be sent to accused Ashwani in jail and be given dasti.

Copy of the order be uploaded on the website of New Delhi District.


06.07.2021

FIR No.76/21PS Spl CellU/s: 21/29/61 NDPS Act Rajender Vs State

06.07.2021

Present: Sh Anshu Malik, proxy counsel for applicant/accused Rajender through

VC.

Sh Ravindra Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State through VC.

Proxy counsel for accused submits that arguing counsel is not well and

requested short adjournment.

One more opportunity given.

At request, list this application for 27.07.2021.



06.07.2021

Case No. VIII/28/DZU/2020U/s: 8/22/29 NDPS Act NCB Vs Raja Jaswant Singh Sandhu

06.07.2021

Present: Sh P C Aggarwal, Ld. SPP for NCB through VC.

IO Sachin through VC.

IO filed an application for issuance of NBWs against accused Amarjeet

Singh Sandhu S/o Katar Singh Sandhu R/o F108, Ground floor, Rajouri Garden,

New Delhi.

It is submitted by the IO that despite his best efforts, aforesaid accused

Amarjeet Singh Sandhu could not be traced.

Heard. In view of the submissions made, it appears that accused

Amarjeet Singh Sandhu is evading his arrest, therefore, issue NBWs against accused

Amarjeet Singh Sandhu S/o Katar Singh Sandhu R/o F108, Ground floor, Rajouri

Garden, New Delhi for 23.07.2021.



06.07.2021

Case No. VIII/02/DZU/2021U/s: 8/21/22/29 NDPS Act NCB Vs Syed Javed Hussain & Ors.

06.07.2021

Present: Sh P C Aggarwal, Ld. SPP for NCB through VC.

IO Anand Kumar through VC.

IO filed an application for issuance of NBWs against accused Amarjeet

Singh Sandhu S/o Katar Singh Sandhu R/o F108, Ground floor, Rajouri Garden,

New Delhi.

It is submitted by the IO that despite his best efforts, aforesaid accused

Amarjeet Singh Sandhu could not be traced.

Heard. In view of the submissions made, it appears that accused

Amarjeet Singh Sandhu is evading his arrest, therefore, issue NBWs against accused

Amarjeet Singh Sandhu S/o Katar Singh Sandhu R/o F108, Ground floor, Rajouri

Garden, New Delhi for 23.07.2021.



06.07.2021

FIR No.69/2021PS R K PuramU/s: 20/61/85 NDPS Act State Vs Ajit Kumar Singh

06.07.2021


Sh. Sandeep Yadav, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused Ajit Kumar Singh

through VC.

This is an application seeking release of jamatalashi articles moved on

behalf of applicant/accused Ajit Kumar Singh.

Reply of IO received. As per the same, IO has no objection to the release

of jamatalashi articles except notice u/s 50 NDPS Act to the accused.

In view of the same, let all the jamatalashi articles except notice u/s 50

NDPS Act be released to the applicant/accused Ajit Kumar Singh against proper

acknowledgment and identification.

Application disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the order be given dasti as well as sent to IO for compliance.



06.07.2021

FIR No.69/2021PS R K PuramU/s: 20/61/85 NDPS Act State Vs Govind

06.07.2021


Sh. Sandeep Yadav, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused Govind through

VC.

This is an application seeking release of jamatalashi articles moved on

behalf of applicant/accused Govind.

Reply of IO received. As per the same, IO has no objection to the release

of jamatalashi articles except notice u/s 50 NDPS Act to the accused.

In view of the same, let all the jamatalashi articles except notice u/s 50

NDPS Act be released to the applicant/accused Govind against proper

acknowledgment and identification.

Application disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the order be given dasti as well as sent to IO for compliance.



06.07.2021

FIR No.304/2020PS Spl CellU/s: 21/61/85 NDPS Act State Vs Mahamud

06.07.2021


Sh A K Mishra, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused Mahamud through

VC.

Arguments heard.

Put up for orders on 07.07.2021.



06.07.2021

SC No. 67/21NCB Vs Wahid Ali & Ors.

06.07.2021

Present: Sh Mukesh Malik, Ld. SPP for NCB through VC.

Sh Dharmender Bhan, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused Bethlehem @

Nunu through VC.

At request, list these applications for 08.07.2021.



06.07.2021

SC No. 67/21NCB Vs Wahid Ali & Ors.

06.07.2021


Sh Adarsh Priyadarshi, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused Emmanuel

Williams through VC.




06.07.2021

SC No. 67/21NCB Vs Wahid Ali

06.07.2021


Sh Rahul Jain, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused Wahid Ali through VC.




06.07.2021

FIR No.28/16PS Spl Cell U/s: 18 & 29/61/85 NDPS Act Ram Kumar Gupta Vs State

06.07.2021

ORDER

Vide this order, I shall dispose of the bail application u/s 439 Cr.PC filed on

behalf of accused Ram Kumar Gupta.

Brief facts of the prosecution as per reply filed are that many mobile

numbers including 8006402719 (Being used by Master), 7085436193 (being used by

Jagannath), 9759290233 (being used by Mangli), 9675022666 (being used by

Rakesh Gupta), 9675815056, 8650270945 (being used by Umesh Sahni),

9639324617 (being used by Tarun Maurya) etc and a few other numbers being used

by associates of above persons including Umesh Sahni were under lawful

interception. All identified by their names during subsequent stage after monitoring

their above numbers. Above persons appeared to be members of an interstate narcotic

syndicate who were indulging in drug supplying in Delhi, UP, Punjab & Manipur and

they were doing this in close association with each other. During monitoring of these

numbers it was also revealed that Nand Ram, Mangli Ram and Umesh Sahni, all

resident of Bareilly, UP used to frequently go to Manipur and they used to collect big

consignments of opium from Jagannath of Churachandpur in Manipur on the behest

of Rakesh Gupta, Mangli Ram, Ram Kumar Gupta etc. All three used to carry these

drugs to Bareilly, UP where they used to hand over the contraband to their handlers/

associates. SI Raj Singh briefed Inspr. Attar Singh about said information and

development regarding monitoring on 16/05/2016 who briefed Shri Nishant Gupta,

ACP/ Special Cell/NR. SI Raj Singh also deployed his sources to develop the

information and also to keep watch upon activities of members of this syndicate. SI

Raj Singh recorded DD No. 24 on 16/05/2016 in this regard and it was put up before

ACP/ Special Cell/NR through Insp. Attar Singh. On 24/05/2016, on receipt of secret

information by SI Raj Singh, two members of the syndicate namely Nand Ram and

Mangli Ram would come from Bareilly in their Bolero Jeep No. UP87E0282 and

they would handover big consignment of opium to their contacts at Mukarba Chowk

2

in Delhi between 03:30 PM to 04:30 PM. SI Raj Singh immediately reduced said

information into writing on a separate piece of paper at about 01:50 PM and

thereafter, SI Raj Singh informed Inspr. Attar Singh about this information. Inspr.

Attar Singh informed ACP/Special Cell/NR and SI Raj Singh lodged DD No. 19 at

02:00 PM in this regard. Copies of said DD entry and information were put up before

ACP/Special Cell/NR through Insp. Attar Singh. SI Raj Singh constituted a raiding

party. Police team intercepted above Bolero jeep beneath flyover at Mukarba Chowk

and two drug suppliers namely Nand Ram and Mangli Ram were apprehended at

about 03:45 PM. SI Raj Singh served notices u/s 50 NDPS Act to both of above

accused persons separately. First of all Nand Ram @ Master and there after Mangli

Ram was served notice u/s 50 NDPS Act. SI Raj Singh also told them about contents

of the notice and meaning of gazatted officer and magistrate. Nand Ram himself read

the notice and understood the meaning. Both accused persons denied to be search by

any gazatted officer or magistrate and also denied to take search of any member of

police party or govt vehicle. Nand Ram @ Master wrote his refusal on original copy of

notice and SI Raj Singh wrote refusal of Mangli Ram upon original copy of notice as

per his dictation. 80 kgs opium was recovered from Bolero Jeep at spot. Above

mentioned case was got registered and further investigation was taken up. Both the

accused persons were subjected to sustained interrogation upon which they disclosed

that they alongwith his associate Umesh Sahni had brought 105 kgs opium from

Manipur and above three alongwith Rakesh Gupta, Chanderpal @ Tesu, Mahabir, etc

used to indulge in drug supply for last 20 years. They also disclosed that they had

handed over 13 kgs opium to Umesh Sahni and 10 kgs opium to Chanderpal in

Bareilly, UP which they can get recover and main source of supply namely Jagannath

from Manipur.

During investigation, SI Bhushan Kumar deputed to arrest Chanderpal

@ Tesu. On the basis of information provided by arrested Nand Ram @ Master, house

of Chanderpal was located at about 04:15 AM. SI Bhushan Kumar alongwith staff

conducted raid at house of Chanderpal @ Tesu i.e. in Shivdham Colony, Village

Kandharpur, District Bareilly, UP at about 04:30 AM on 25/05/2016. Chanderpal

jumped from 2nd floor of his house upon roof of his neighbor, thus injuring his ankle.

3

Search of his house led to recovery of 10 kgs opium. He also disclosed that he has

been indulging in supplying of opium and heroin for last 20 years. Another team led

by SI Bijender Singh arrested accused Rakesh Gupta from his house i.e. H. No. 160,

Bukhar Pura, Near Bhdh Wali Masjid, District Bareilly, UP, at about 02:30 PM and 02

Kg opium was recovered from his possession. Accused Umesh Sahni was arrested by

SI Sandeep Kumar As per directions of senior officers from his house i.e. H No A

119/2, Rajender Nagar, District Bareilly, UP in Bareilly UP and 13 Kg opium was

recovered from his possession. After taking permission from senior officers, SI

Jitender Tiwari conducted a raid and accused Jagannath, source of supply of

recovered opium was arrested from house of his inlaws in village Jatoli, Mohalla

Thatiya, Distt. Muzaffarpur, Bihar and 08 kgs opium was recovered from his

possession. Accused Jagannath was subjected to sustained interrogation upon which

he admitted to have supplied 105 kgs opium to persons arrested in above case. He

also disclosed that he has been indulging in supply of opium and heroin to various

persons of Bareilly, UP for last 10 years. Apart from names of arrested 05 accused

persons in above case, he disclosed that he used to supply opium to many other

persons namely Ram Gupta, Tarun Maurya, Ravi Gupta of Bareilly, UP and many

others. Accused Tarun Kumar Maurya was arrested in above case on 22/08/2016

from Bareilly UP and 03 kgs opium was recovered from his possession. On 27/09/16,

accused Ram Kumar Gupta was arrested from his house in Bareilly at about 08:45 AM

and 01 kg opium was recovered from his possession. Accused Umesh Sahni is working

as a member of interstate narco syndicate, this fact proves through the connectivity

chart. It is further stated that many mobile numbers suspectedly used by members of

syndicate including arrested Umesh Sahni and his other associates were on

interception. Monitoring of interception revealed that all accused persons were

communicating with each other and their associates about discussing of transaction,

quality rate, weight etc of heroin. Sample voices of all above accused persons

including Umesh Sahni were taken in FSL Rohini and the same were deposited with

FSL Rohini alongwith intercepted voice calls for expert opinion. As per FSL report, the

voice samples of all accused persons including Ram Kumar Gupta matched with

intercepted voice calls of accused persons. FSL report of voice samples is also proving

-4-

the indulgence of Ram Kumar Gupta in drug trafficking activities. Tarun Kumar

Mourya went to Manipur in order to procure Opium from Jagannath Rai on the

direction of Ram Kumar Gupta. After completion of investigation in all aspects,

chargesheet against all accused person including petitioner accused Ram Kumar

Gupta was filed before the trial court.

Ld. Counsel for accused Ram Kumar Gupta submits that there is

recovery of 01 kg of opium which is intermediate quantity from the present accused

and present accused is in custody since 27.09.2016, therefore, entitled to be released

on bail as bar u/s 37 NDPS Act do not operate upon him. Ld. Counsel submits that

offence u/s 29 NDPS Act is also not made out against present accused. In this case, at

first accused Nand Ram and Mangli Ram were apprehended and from whom 80 kg of

opium was recovered however in their disclosure statements, they have not named

the present accused, thereafter on 25.05.2016, 13 kg of opium was recovered from

accused Umesh Sahni, 10 kg opium from Chanderpal and 02 kg of opium from

Rakesh Gupta however all these accused persons have also not named the present

accused. Thereafter on 20.06.2016, accused Jagannath Rai was arrested and 08 kg of

opium was recovered from him and he only named accused Rakesh Gupta and Ram

Kumar Gupta i.e. present accused. Thereafter accused Tarun Kumar Mourya was

apprehended on 22.08.2016 and from whom 03 kg of opium was recovered who in

his disclosure statement has named Rakesh Gupta and Ram Kumar Gupta then on

27.09.2016, present accused was apprehended and there is recovery of 01 kg of

opium from the present accused. Ld. Counsel submits that merely on the basis of

disclosure statement, conspiracy cannot be said to be proved (relied upon Surender

Kumar Khanna Vs Intelligence Officer, DRI 2018 (8) SCC 271). Ld. Counsel submits

that on secret information on 24.05.2016 SI Raj Singh put the information vide DD

no. 19 to Insp Atar Singh who in turn discussed it with ACP Nishant Gupta, Spl Cell,

thereafter ACP directed Insp Atar Singh to act on information who sub delegated to SI

Raj Singh. Pursuant to which, accused Nand Ram and Mangli Ram were apprehended

with opium. The sub delegation is not permitted. Hence, there is a violation of

provisions u/section 41 & 42 NDPS Act. Ld. Counsel submits that furthermore present

accused was apprehended by SI Bijender Singh who has received the information

5

telephonically by Insp Atar Singh who is not empowered officer, therefore, recovery

from present accused also becomes illegal in view of non compliance of section 41 &

42 NDPS Act. Ld. Counsel submits that on this ground alone accused entitled for bail

(relied upon Gulbabu Vs. State B.A. No. 732/2021 dated 01.06.2021). Ld. Counsel

submits that co accused Tarun Kumar Mourya disclosed that he used to supply the

opium to present accused however his statement is not legally admissible. The

prosecution case also relied upon the telephonic calls and recorded transcripts

between present accused and co accused Jagannath Rai for inference of conspiracy

however there is nothing in the transcription about the talk of contraband, only there

is a material regarding the vehicle and amount. Furthermore, voice samples of only

petitioner was matched as per voice report and not of Jagannath Rai, therefore,

conspiracy is also not proved. Ld. Counsel submits that there is no admissible

evidence against accused and accused is in custody since 27.09.2016, therefore,

entitled to be released on bail.

Ld. Addl. PP submits that principal accused, the king pin in this case is

Jagannath Rai and only on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Jagannath Rai

and Tarun Kumar Mourya, the present accused was arrested and 01 kg of opium was

recovered and if on the basis of these facts and circumstances any recovery is made

then it is admissible u/s 27 NDPS Act. Ld. Addl. PP submits that this recovery do not

restrict the role of accused to the recovery of 01 kg of opium but also his involvement

in the drug syndicate, thus, the charge u/s 29 NDPS Act already framed and matter is

at the stage of PE. PE cannot be appreciated at piecemeal at this stage. Ld. Addl. PP

submits that there is total recovery of 117 kg of opium from the accused persons and

accused persons are members of interstate narco syndicate and well connected

through mobile phones. This fact is also established through CDRs, intercepted voice

calls etc. The voice of present accused has been matched as per FSL report which

clearly shows his involvement in drug syndicate with main accused Jagannath Rai.

The accused was arrested by SI Bijender Singh on the direction of Insp Atar Singh

who telephonically directed him to conduct search and seizure as SI Bijender Singh

was in Bareilly, therefore at this stage, it cannot be inferred that there is non

compliance of provisions u/s 41 & 42

-6-

NDPS Act. Furthermore, in present facts and circumstances, non compliance of

section 41 & 42 NDPS Act is to be seen after conclusion of trial and not at this stage.

Ld. Addl. PP submits that accused Jagannath Rai is the king pin who used to procure

the opium from Naga tribes of Manipur and further supplied it to his contacts in

Bareilly, Badaun and other parts of country and present accused Ram Kumar Gupta

was associated with Jagannath Rai and he introduced associates namely Rakesh

Gupta, Chanderpal @ Tesu. Nand Ram @ Master, Tarun Maurya etc. to Jagannath.

The complete chain is exposed in the present case. Ld. Addl. PP submits that there is

definite bar u/s 37 NDPS Act over release of accused on bail. Ld. Addl. PP submits

that previously vide order dated 31.01.2019 the bail application of this accused was

dismissed. There are no fresh grounds made out to release the applicant on bail.

Hence, mere incarceration in this case is no ground to release the accused on bail,

therefore, the bail application of accused is liable to be dismissed.


Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673, the Court

while taking note of Section 37 of the Act held that "negation of bail is the rule and its

grant an exception under Section 37 of the Act and for granting the bail the Court

must, on the basis of the record produced before it, be satisfied that there are

reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences with

which he is charged and further that he is not likely to commit any offence while on

bail".

The position stands reiterated in Sami Ullaha v. Superintendent, Narcotic

Central Bureau, (2008) 16 SCC and Union of India v. Rattan Mallik alias Habul,

(2009) 2 SCC 624 wherein the Apex Court further clarified that when a

prosecution/conviction is for an offence under a special statute and that statute

contains specific provisions for dealing with matters arising thereunder, including an

application for grant of bail, such provisions cannot be ignored while dealing with

such an application and observed that :

"9. The broad principles which should weigh with the Court in granting bailin a nonbailable offence have been enumerated in a catena of decisions ofthis Court and, therefore, for the sake of brevity, we do not propose toreiterate the same. However, when a prosecution/conviction is for offence(s)

-7-

under a special statute and that statute contains specific provisions fordealing with matters arising thereunder, including an application for grant ofbail, these provisions cannot be ignored while dealing with such anapplication."

Apex Court in case titled State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh Crl. Appeal No. 154

157/2020 dated 24.01.2020 observed as under:

18. The jurisdiction of the Court to grant bail is circumscribed by theprovisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It can be granted in case there arereasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence,and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is themandate of the legislature which is required to be followed. At this juncture,a reference to Section 37 of the Act is apposite. That provision makes theoffences under the Act cognizable and nonbailable. It reads thus:

“37. Offences to be cognizable and nonbailable.—(1) Notwithstandinganything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),—

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offences undersection 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involvingcommercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bondunless—

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose theapplication for such release, and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court issatisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is notguilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offencewhile on bail.

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of subsection(1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of CriminalProcedure,1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in forceon granting of bail.” (emphasis supplied)

19. This Court has laid down broad parameters to be followed whileconsidering the application for bail moved by the accused involved in offencesunder NDPS Act. In Union of India Vs. Ram Samujh and Ors. 1999(9) SCC429, it has been elaborated as under:

“7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate isrequired to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind thatin a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons,while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumentalin causing death or in inflicting deathblow to a number of innocent

-8-

young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and adeadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even ifthey are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continuetheir nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicantsclandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved.This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to punishmentunder the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect ofsuch activities in Durand Didier v. Chief Secy., Union Territory of Goa[(1990) 1 SCC 95)] as under:

24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organisedactivities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling ofnarcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country andillegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drugaddiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly theadolescents and students of both sexes and the menace hasassumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years.Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate thisproliferating and booming devastating menace, causingdeleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole,Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions byintroducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimumimprisonment and fine.

8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market,Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences underthe NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless themandatory conditions provided in Section 37, namely,

(i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is notguilty of such offence; and

(ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail aresatisfied. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason fornot abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the releaseof the respondentaccused on bail. Instead of attempting to take aholistic view of the harmful socioeconomic consequences andhealth hazards which would accompany trafficking illegally indangerous drugs, the court should implement the law in the spiritwith which Parliament, after due deliberation, has amended.”

20. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grantbail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439of the CrPC, but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37which commences with nonobstante clause. The operative part of the saidsection is in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to anyperson accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin

-9-

conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must begiven an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that theCourt must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing thathe is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is notsatisfied, the ban for granting bail operates.

21. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more thanprima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes forbelieving that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonablebelief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts andcircumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that theaccused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the HighCourt seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section37 that in addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, or any otherlaw for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberalapproach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for.

22. We may further like to observe that the learned Single Judge has failed torecord a finding mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act which is a sinequa non for granting bail to the accused under the NDPS Act.

23. The submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that inCrime No. 14/2018, the bail has been granted to the other accusedpersons(A1 to A4), and no steps have been taken by the prosecution tochallenge the grant of postarrest bail to the other accused persons, is of noconsequence for the reason that the consideration prevailed upon the Court togrant bail to the other accused persons will not absolve the act of the accusedrespondent(A5) from the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

It is settled law while considering the bail, the court has not to

appreciate the evidence in piece meal and only has to see whether the prima facie

case exists. In view of the mandate of above judgments, the denial of bail is a rule

and grant is an exception. The reasonable grounds required for grant of bail are more

than prima facie grounds. In this case, there is total recovery of 117 kg of opium. The

accused Jagannath Rai is found to be the king pin who used to procure the opium

from Naga tribes of Manipur and further supplied it to his contacts in Bareilly,

Badaun and other parts of country. Present accused Ram Kumar Gupta was associated

with Jagannath Rai and he introduced associates namely Rakesh Gupta, Chanderpal

@ Tesu. Nand Ram @ Master, Tarun Maurya etc. to Jagannath. The present accused

used to visit Manipur to take the supply. The voice samples of all the accused persons

-10-

were sent to FSL and voice sample duly matched. In these facts and circumstances, it

cannot be held at this stage that accused is not part of conspiracy or syndicate. In

these facts and circumstances of the case, accused is not restricted to role of

possession of 1 Kg of opium. The charges have already been framed. The violation if

any of section 41 & 42 NDPS Act in present circumstances cannot be appreciated at

this stage when the evidence of material witnesses in this regard is still undergoing.

Apex Court in case titled Union of India Vs. Prateek Shukla, Crl. A. No. 284/2021

dated 08.03.2021 have categorically held that provisions of section 37 NDPS Act to be

applied strictly while deciding the case for grant of bail. Apex Court in another recent

judgment titled State Vs. Lokesh Chadha Crl. A No. 257/2021 dated 02.03.2021

observed that the judgment of State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh is to be followed while

deciding bail. There is recovery of commercial quantity of heroine, thus there is

definite embargo u/s 37 NDPS Act and court must be satisfied that there are

reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of the offences with which

one is charged and further that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It

cannot be inferred at this stage there are reasonable ground to believe that accused is

not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Mere

incarceration in jail is no ground to release the accused on bail. In present facts and

circumstances, I do not find any ground to release the applicant/accused Ram Kumar

Gupta on bail. Hence, the present application is dismissed.

Application disposed of accordingly. Copy of the order be given dasti as well as

be sent to accused Ram Kumar Gupta in jail.



06.07.2021

FIR No.28/16PS Spl Cell U/s: 18 & 29/61/85 NDPS Act Ram Kumar Gupta Vs State

06.07.2021

Present: Sh Rajiv Mohan, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused Ram Kumar Gupta

through VC.

Sh Ravindra Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State through VC.

Heard.

Vide separate order, the bail application of the accused Ram Kumar

Gupta stands dismissed.

The application is disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the order be given dasti to parties. Copy of this order be also

sent to accused Ram Kumar Gupta in jail.



06.07.2021

Case No. VIII/13, 13A/DZU/2020Kashmir @ Mausam & Ors. Vs NCB

06.07.2021

Present: Sh Y K Saxena, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused Rex Ajmeria @

Rajeev Rex through VC.

Sh Mukesh Malik, Ld. SPP for NCB through VC.

Reply filed. Copy supplied.




06.07.2021

NCB Vs. Emmanuel Chinedu Ani & Ors. Case No. SC/484/19U/s: 21/23/29 NDPS Act

06.07.2021


Sh Sumit Sarna, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused Alex Anekew

Chinqwaze through VC.

Brief facts of the case are that on receiving secret and reliable

information on 25.05.2019, the house of accused Emmanuel Chinedu Eni was raided

and at that house all the three accused including Alex Anekew and Rosemary Masika

were found present and on opening the trolley bag of Rosemary 5 kg of heroin was

recovered which she alleged to have been given by accused Alex on 24.05.2019 in

Mumbai with instructions to give Emmanuel. One transparent polythene containing

2.6 kg of cocaine which as per CRCL report tested positive for heroin and 55 gm of

amphetamine which as per CRCL report not tested positive for amphetamine was

recovered and furthermore currency notes of Rs. 1.30 lacs were also recovered.

Accused admitted their complicity in the statement u/s 67 and found to be dealing in

illicit trafficking of drugs and present accused is found to be living in India on expired

visa and there is a recovery of commercial quantity of contraband.

Ld. Counsel for Alex submitted that there is no recovery from the

present accused and first recovery is made from the room where black colour big size

trolley was found and accused Rosemary Masika confirmed that she is the owner of

the bag, therefore, the said recovery cannot be associated with the present accused.

Furthermore, second recovery is from the house of accused Emmanuel Chinedu Ani

which is also not associated with the present accused. The statement of accused

persons u/s 67 NDPS Act are not admissible. There are two mobile phones having

two IMEI Nos. were recovered from the present accused however the said mobile are

not found to be connected with the CDR of mobile no. 8929919804 alleged to be

used by present accused as per statement u/s 67 NDPS Act of co accused Emmanuel

Chinedu Ani. Ld. Counsel submits that accused is in JC since 25.05.2019 and no more

required for investigation, hence, entitled to be released on bail.

2

Ld. SPP on the other hand submitted that there is recovery of

commercial quantity of contraband and all the accused were found together with the

said recovery and chargesheet was filed u/s 21/23/29 NDPS Act. Accused are found

to be conspiring with each other furthermore, the entire contents of contraband is to

be seen and not only the percentage in view of the recent judgment of Apex Court in

case title as Hira Singh Vs. State of Haryana dated 22.04.2020. Ld. SPP submits that

present accused has handed over the bag containing 05 kg of heroin to the co accused

Rosemary in Mumbai to hand over the same to Emmanuel Chinedu Ani however

thereafter he came to Delhi and at the time of apprehension, all the three accused

persons were together and in presence of all accused, 05kg of heroin was recovered

from the bag of co accused Rosemary Masika and thereafter from the house of co

accused, recovery of heroin was effected. There is recovery of commercial quantity of

drug. The mobile no. 8929919804 was used in mobile bearing IMEI No.

358983091896030. Ld. SPP submits that recovery was in presence of accused,

therefore, there is a presumption under section 35 & 54 NDPS Act against all the

accused persons. The conspiracy is explicit. The bail of co accused Emmanuel

Chinedu Ani has already been dismissed vide order dated 07.11.2020 by this court.

Ld. SPP submits that there is definite bar u/s 37 NDPS Act over release of accused on

bail, therefore, no ground made out to release the accused on bail.


Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673, the

Court while taking note of Section 37 of the Act held that "negation of bail is the rule

and its grant an exception under Section 37 of the Act and for granting the bail the

Court must, on the basis of the record produced before it, be satisfied that there are

reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences with

which he is charged and further that he is not likely to commit any offence while on

bail".

3

The position stands reiterated in Sami Ullaha v. Superintendent, Narcotic

Central Bureau, (2008) 16 SCC and Union of India v. Rattan Mallik alias Habul,

(2009) 2 SCC 624 wherein the Apex Court further clarified that when a

prosecution/conviction is for an offence under a special statute and that statute

contains specific provisions for dealing with matters arising thereunder, including an

application for grant of bail, such provisions cannot be ignored while dealing with

such an application and observed that :

"9. The broad principles which should weigh with the Court in granting bailin a nonbailable offence have been enumerated in a catena of decisions ofthis Court and, therefore, for the sake of brevity, we do not propose toreiterate the same. However, when a prosecution/conviction is for offence(s)under a special statute and that statute contains specific provisions fordealing with matters arising thereunder, including an application for grant ofbail, these provisions cannot be ignored while dealing with such anapplication."

Apex Court in case titled State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh Crl. Appeal No. 154

157/2020 dated 24.01.2020 observed as under:

18. The jurisdiction of the Court to grant bail is circumscribed by theprovisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It can be granted in case there arereasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence,and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is themandate of the legislature which is required to be followed. At this juncture,a reference to Section 37 of the Act is apposite. That provision makes theoffences under the Act cognizable and nonbailable. It reads thus:

“37. Offences to be cognizable and nonbailable.—(1) Notwithstandinganything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),—

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offences undersection 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involvingcommercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bondunless—

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose theapplication for such release, and

4

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court issatisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is notguilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offencewhile on bail.

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of subsection(1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of CriminalProcedure,1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in forceon granting of bail.” (emphasis supplied)

19. This Court has laid down broad parameters to be followed whileconsidering the application for bail moved by the accused involved in offencesunder NDPS Act. In Union of India Vs. Ram Samujh and Ors. 1999(9) SCC429, it has been elaborated as under:

“7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate isrequired to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind thatin a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons,while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumentalin causing death or in inflicting deathblow to a number of innocentyoung victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and adeadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even ifthey are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continuetheir nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicantsclandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved.This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to punishmentunder the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect ofsuch activities in Durand Didier v. Chief Secy., Union Territory of Goa[(1990) 1 SCC 95)] as under:

24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organisedactivities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling ofnarcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country andillegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drugaddiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly theadolescents and students of both sexes and the menace hasassumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years.Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate thisproliferating and booming devastating menace, causingdeleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole,Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions byintroducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimumimprisonment and fine.

5

8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market,Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences underthe NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless themandatory conditions provided in Section 37, namely,

(i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused isnot guilty of such offence; and

(ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail aresatisfied. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason fornot abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the releaseof the respondentaccused on bail. Instead of attempting to take aholistic view of the harmful socioeconomic consequences andhealth hazards which would accompany trafficking illegally indangerous drugs, the court should implement the law in the spiritwith which Parliament, after due deliberation, has amended.”

20. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grantbail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439of the CrPC, but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37which commences with nonobstante clause. The operative part of the saidsection is in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to anyperson accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twinconditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must begiven an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that theCourt must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing thathe is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is notsatisfied, the ban for granting bail operates.

21. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more thanprima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes forbelieving that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonablebelief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts andcircumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that theaccused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the HighCourt seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section37 that in addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, or any otherlaw for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberalapproach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for.

22. We may further like to observe that the learned Single Judge has failed torecord a finding mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act which is a sinequa non for granting bail to the accused under the NDPS Act.

6

23. The submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that inCrime No. 14/2018, the bail has been granted to the other accusedpersons(A1 to A4), and no steps have been taken by the prosecution tochallenge the grant of postarrest bail to the other accused persons, is of noconsequence for the reason that the consideration prevailed upon the Court togrant bail to the other accused persons will not absolve the act of the accusedrespondent(A5) from the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

It is settled law while considering the bail, the court has not to

appreciate the evidence in piece meal and only has to see whether the prima facie

case exists. In view of the mandate of above judgments, the denial of bail is a rule

and grant is an exception. The reasonable grounds required for grant of bail are more

than prima facie grounds. At the time of recovery, all the three accused were found

together in the house of coaccused. The recovery of 5 kg from the trolley bag of

accused Rosemary was gien by present accused for delivery to accused Emmanuel

Chinedu Ani and 2.6 kg of heroin is recovered from accused Emmanuel Chinedu Ani.

At the time of recovery, all the accused persons were together, therefore, there is

presumption u/s 35 & 54 NDPS Act against the accused persons. The accused is also

found to be connected with co accused through mobile connections. In present facts

and circumstances, it cannot be held that the entire case of prosecution based on the

statement of accused u/s 67 NDPS Act. The credibility of the prosecution cannot be

appreciated at this stage. Apex Court in case titled Union of India Vs. Prateek Shukla,

Crl. A. No. 284/2021 dated 08.03.2021 have categorically held that provisions of

section 37 NDPS Act to be applied strictly while deciding the case for grant of bail.

Apex Court in another recent judgment titled State Vs. Lokesh Chadha Crl. A No.

257/2021 dated 02.03.2021 observed that the judgment of State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh

is to be followed while deciding bail. There is recovery of commercial quantity of

heroin, thus there is definite embargo u/s 37 NDPS Act and court must be satisfied

that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of the

offences with which one is charged and further that he is not likely to commit any

offence while on bail. It cannot be inferred at this stage there are reasonable ground

to believe that accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any

offence while on bail. Mere incarceration in jail is no ground to release the accused

on bail. In present facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to release the

-7-

applicant/accused Alex Anekew on bail. Hence, the present application is dismissed.

Application disposed of accordingly. Copy of the order be given dasti as

well as be sent to accused Alex Anekew in jail.



06.07.2021

Bail Matter No. 1340/21 FIR No. 26296/18

PS V K South State Vs. Rajesh U/s 379/411 IPC

06.07.2021 Matter taken up through VC pursuant to directions issued by the

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide order No. 6/R/RG/DHC/2021

dated 14.05.2021.

Present: Sh. S.K. Kain, Ld. Addl. PP for the State through VC. Sh. Piyush Sachdev, LAC for the applicant/accused through VC.

Counsel for applicant/accused after going through the list

of pending cases against the accused has stated that he wishes to

withdraw the present application with liberty to move a fresh

application after seeking proper instructions from the

applicant/accused.

Therefore, the present application is dismissed as

withdrawn.

Application disposed off accordingly.

Order dasti.

Harjyot Singh Bhalla ADJ/ASJ/PO MACT/PHC/New Delhi Roster Judge 06.07.2021


PS Vasant Vihar State Vs. Mahesh Lakhera

U/s 379 IPC 06.07.2021 Matter taken up through VC pursuant to directions issued by the


dated 14.05.2021.

Present: Sh. S.K. Kain, Ld. Addl. PP for the State through VC. Sh. Shripal Upadhyay, proxy counsel for the applicant/accused through VC. Sh. R.K. Wadhwa, counsel for complainant through VC.

IO SI Deepak through VC.

It is stated on behalf of the proxy counsel for

applicant/accused that the main counsel is suffering from post

vaccination fever.

Therefore, at his request, list this matter on 14.07.2021.

Harjyot Singh Bhalla ADJ/ASJ/PO MACT/PHC/New Delhi

Roster Judge 06.07.2021

Bail Matter No. 573/21 FIR No. 21/21 PS V K North

State Vs. Sushant Vashisht U/s 498A/406/34 IPC

06.07.2021 Matter taken up through VC pursuant to directions issued by the


dated 14.05.2021.

Present: Sh. S.K. Kain, Ld. Addl. PP for the State through VC. Sh. Nitish Banka, counsel with the applicant/accused through VC. Sh. Suresh Sisodia, counsel for complainant through VC.

Complainant is present through VC. IO SI Yashpal through VC. It is stated by the IO that accused is not co-operating in

investigation and today while addressing the arguments, counsel for

accused has submitted that there are documents to justify the

payments received in the account from the complainant at or around

the time of marriage and thereafter.

IO has submitted that no such document has been given

to him so far.

Last and final opportunity is given to the accused to

produce the relevant material before the IO, failing which the

submission of the IO that the accused is not co-operating would be

considered and acted upon.

List this matter for arguments and report of the IO on the

co-operation given by the accused on 02.08.2021.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused is also requested to

inform whether the rent of the house, where the parties last resided

and as of now complainant is residing, is being paid by the accused or

not and when was the last rent paid by the accused.

Let an affidavit be filed by the applicant/accused in this

regard.


Bail Matter No. 850/21 FIR No. 94/21 PS V K South State Vs. Ajay

U/s 394/34 IPC 06.07.2021 Matter taken up through VC pursuant to directions issued by the


dated 14.05.2021.

Present: Sh. S.K. Kain, Ld. Addl. PP for the State through VC. None for the applicant/accused.

Accused is already on interim bail.

Ld. Addl. PP has no objection if the interim bail of the

accused has been extended. Therefore, interim bail of

applicant/accused is extended for the period of 2 months.

The present application is disposed off accordingly.

Harjyot Singh Bhalla ADJ/ASJ/PO MACT/PHC/New Delhi Roster Judge

06.07.2021


PS Vasant Vihar State Vs. Amit Panwar

U/s 307/392/394/34 IPC 06.07.2021 Matter taken up through VC pursuant to directions issued by the


dated 14.05.2021.

Present: Sh. S.K. Kain, Ld. Addl. PP for the State through VC. Ms. Kavita Sawroop, counsel for the applicant/accused through VC.

IO SI Sandeep through VC.

It is informed by the counsel for applicant/accused that e-

copy of chargesheet has not been supplied to her despite directions of

the court.

IO is warned to be careful in future.

Let e-copy of the chargesheet be supplied to the counsel

for applicant/accused, as also, to the court alongwith reply to the bail

application immediately.

List this matter on 09.07.2021.



PS V K South State Vs. Preeti Gupta

U/s 354 C IPC & 66 E & 67 A IT Act

06.07.2021

Matter taken up through VC pursuant to directions issued by the


dated 14.05.2021.

Present: Sh. S.K. Kain, Ld. Addl. PP for the State through VC.

Sh. Manoj Kumar, counsel for the applicant/accused through VC.

Counsel for applicant/accused has submitted that accused

is a woman and she has recently suffered a fracture of the leg and

therefore, she is not in a condition to move.

Further, counsel has stated that he is willing to offer the

mobile of the applicant/accused to the IO so that necessary

investigation can be carried out. He has claimed that the video was

sent by the complainant herself to the applicant/accused and the whole

story is being cooked up because the complainant was having affair

with the husband of the applicant/accused.

Be that as it may, IO shall serve proper notice upon the

accused of the phone handsets required to be submitted by the

applicant/accused with reference to the particular phone numbers. In

case IO is not satisfied with the handsets provided, he may inform the

court and further course of action will be taken.

Let there be no arrest till the next date of hearing.

List this matter on 03.08.2021.


Bail Matter No. 1402/21 & 1403/21 FIR No. 731/20 & 671/20

PS V K South State Vs. Karan

U/s 380/411/356/379 IPC

06.07.2021

Matter taken up through VC pursuant to directions issued by the


dated 14.05.2021.

Present: Sh. S.K. Kain, Ld. Addl. PP for the State through VC.

None for the applicant/accused. IO ASI Sunil Kumar through VC.

Accused has already spent 6 months in JC. Therefore, he

is admitted to interim bail for a period of 60 days subject to the

condition that he shall not commit any offence while he is on interim

bail.

Interim bail is subject to furnishing of bail bonds/surety

bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount for

each of the cases to the satisfaction of concerned Ld. MM/Duty MM.

Application is disposed off with liberty to move a regular

bail application after the expiry of period of interim bail.

Order dasti.

Harjyot Singh Bhalla ADJ/ASJ/PO MACT/PHC/New Delhi Roster Judge

06.07.2021

dharmend er rana - district court

Documents