state v. luo sang @ charlie peng fir no. 281/2020 u/s 420

1

State v. Luo Sang @ Charlie Peng

FIR No. 281/2020 U/s 420/467/468/471/474/120B IPC

PS Special Cell

09.08.2021

Present: Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for State through VC. IO Insp. Sumit Kumar is present through VC. Sh. Vikas Pahwa, Ld. Senior Advocate with Sh. Sumer Singh Boperai, Sh. Shadman Ahmed Siddiqui, Sh. Lavkesh Bhambani and Sh. Kartik Sabharwal, 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.

1. Present is an application moved on behalf of applicant/accused Luo

Sang @ Charlie Peng for grant of regular bail. It is submitted that

charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case and hence,

no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars;

applicant/accused is languishing in custody for about 170 days; the

evidences in the present case are documentary in nature which is

already in the possession of the department and trial in the instant

matter is likely to consume considerable time and there is no

likelihood that applicant may attempt to influence the witnesses. It is

submitted that the bail application of applicant/accused in the instant

matter was dismissed by Ld. CMM on 02.08.2021 in which Ld. CMM

failed to appreciate that the applicant was on bail for almost three

years in case FIR No. 110/2018 and has never violated the conditions

and Ld. CMM mechanically rejected the bail application without

considering the grounds of applicant/accused for grant of bail.

2. It is submitted that applicant/accused is married to an Indian lady

having one child and hence he is not at flight risk and satisfies the

triple test laid down in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement

2

(2019) 9 SCC 24. It is submitted that investigating agency has filed an

incomplete charge-sheet in order to defeat the indefeasible right of

default bail u/s 167(2) CrPC as Special Cell is yet to receive the main

evidence and documents from ED and Income Tax department and

thereby has failed to make out case of cheating and forgery against

the applicant/accused. It is submitted that there is nothing on record

to show that applicant/accused caused any wrongful loss to the

complainant. It is further submitted that present FIR is not

maintainable as FIR bearing no. 110/2018 has already been

registered by PS Special on the same cause of action i.e.

procurement of Aadhar Card, PAN Card etc through forged ways and

committing illegal business of money exchange and this fact is also

demonstrated from the fact that ED clubbed both the ECIRs

emanating from FIR No. 110/2018 and 281/2020 and filed a single

complaint/charge-sheet. It is submitted that the entire case of

prosecution is based on disclosure statements of the

applicant/accused which are inadmissible as per law.

3. It is further submitted that applicant/accused has been doing

philanthropic work on a large scale helping the needy Indian citizens

especially during present pandemic situation. It is submitted that the

allegations against the applicant/accused, that he procured forged

and fabricated Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Passport etc and used these

IDs to incorporate shell companies for committing hawala transactions,

are totally false and baseless as the companies incorporated by the

applicant/accused are doing legitimate business of custom clearance

and consultancy business and are not indulged in any kind of illegal

business as alleged by the prosecution. It is submitted that the instant

complaint is based on draft agreements which have no sanctity in the

eyes of law as the same are unregistered, unsigned and unexecuted

and applicant/accused or his companies are not party to these drafts;

applicant/accused has no relation with the alleged shell companies

and as per their own admission, Manoj Dudeja and Akshay Taneja

have incorporated and operated the said shell companies , however

no investigation was conducted by investigating agency in this regard.

3

4. In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel has placed reliance upon

the judgment in the matter Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors v. State of Bihar (2009)

8 SCC 751, T T Anthony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181 and

Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1.

5. Ld. Addl. PP has vehemently opposed the bail application arguing that

applicant/accused is a Chinese national who has been instrumental

in hawala transactions and money laundering; he was in touch with

various entry operators and hawala operators who run several bogus

entities and bank accounts having credit of more than 100 crores over

a period of one year; he used to provide money to various lamas in

India who received funds at the behest of applicant/accused from

bogus entities; applicant/accused was previously arrested in case FiR

No. 110/2018 PS Special Cell and after releasing on bail in October,

2018, he again started his business and besides his previous

company Sunhara Bird Pvt. Limited, he incorporated four new

companies i.e. OTA New Delhi, OTA Logistics, Inwin Logistics and

Clean Harbour Pvt. Ltd on the basis of forged and fabricated

documents i.e. Aadhar Card and PAN Card in his forged name Charlie

Peng.

6. It is further submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that applicant/accused came to

India in 2015 via Nepal; he started residing in India with three names

Luo Sang, Charlie Peng and Tsultrim. It is submitted that at the time

of his arrest, he disclosed his name as Luo Sang while he was

carrying the Passport and Aadhar in the name of Charlie Peng. It is

submitted that applicant/accused is at a flight risk and if he is released

on bail, he may leave India.

7. I have heard and considered the rival submissions made by both the

parties and also carefully gone through the material available on

record.

4

8. The foundation of the prosecution case rests upon the allegations that

the applicant/accused incorporated four companies using forged and

fabricated documents. Upon enquiry regarding the said forged and

fabricated documents, Ld. Addl. PP has submitted that the

applicant/accused has used the forged Aadhar Card and PAN Card

for incorporating these companies. Upon further enquiry, Ld. Addl. PP

fairly conceded that although the above said two documents are not

false documents within the meaning of Section 464 IPC, however, the

documents used for procuring the said PAN Card and Aadhar Card

are forged and fabricated. It is fairly conceded that the documents

used by the applicant/accused for procuring the said PAN Card and

Aadhar Card have till date not been seized by the concerned IO. The

prosecution fails to throw any light upon the nature of these

documents to say with certitude that the documents used by the

applicant/accused in procuring Aadhar Card and PAN Card were

infact ‘forged documents’ in the technical sense of the terms. The

applicant/accused is reported to be in j.c for past about 170 days.

9. Considering the nature of allegations and the period of incarceration,

applicant/accused Luo Sang @ Charlie Peng is admitted to bail on his

furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties each

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

and subject to the following conditions :-

i. He shall appear on each and every date of hearing as fixed by

the court concerned;

ii. He shall not leave the country without the permission of the

court;

iii. He shall inform the concerned IO about his active mobile

number and he shall always keep his mobile phone on at all

times;

iv. He shall drop a pin on the google map to ensure that his

location is available to the IO;

v. He shall commit no offence whatsoever during the period when

he is on bail in the instant matter. In the event of there being

5

any FIR/DD entry/complaint lodged against him, it would be

open to the State to seek redressal in accordance with law;

vi. He shall surrender his passport before the court concerned

within seven days of his release from jail.

Needless to say that nothing observed herein shall have

any bearing upon the merit of the case.

Application stands disposed off accordingly. Copy of

this order be given dasti to all the concerned.

Instant order be uploaded on the court website

immediately.

(Dharmender Rana) ASJ-02, NDD/PHC/New Delhi 10.08.2021

DHARMENDER RANA

Digitally signed by DHARMENDER RANA Date: 2021.08.10 17:08:05 +05'30'

CA No. 19/2020 Case No. 56/2020 Jagdish V. State & Ors.

10.08.2021

Present: Sh. Satish Kumar, Ld. Counsel for appellant through VC.

Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for State /R1 through VC.

None has joined the proceedings via video conferencing

on behalf of the R2.

Proceedings done through video conferencing.

It is certified that link was working properly and no


None has appeared on behalf of respondent no.2,

therefore, let court notice be issued to the respondent no.2 for

03.09.2021.


immediately.

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

10.08.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


Case No. 67/2020 CA No. 25/2020 Arun Vats Vs. Kavita Sharma

10.08.2021

Present: Sh. Sanaulhaq, Ld. Counsel for revisionist through VC.


on behalf of the respondent.




None has appeared on behalf of respondent therefore,

let fresh notice be issued to the respondent on filing of PF/RC and AD

for 18.10.2021.


immediately.


10.08.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


Case No. 5/2021 CA No. 01/2021 R. Karthikeyan Ramalingam V. State & Ors.

10.08.2021

Present: Sh. Garv Malhotra, Ld. Counsel for appellant through VC.

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


on behalf of the respondents.




None has appeared on behalf of respondent therefore, let

fresh notice be issued to the respondents on filing of PF/RC and AD for

30.10.2021.


immediately.


10.08.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


Case No. 93/2021 CR No. 07/2021 Surbhi Sahai Vs. Deepu Krishnan & Anr.

10.08.2021

Present: Sh. Akshat Bajpai, Ld. Counsel for petitioner through VC.

Sh. Rajat Arora and Sh. Ekansh Bansal, Ld. Counsel for

respondent no.2 through VC.




At request, matter is listed for arguments on 27.09.2021


immediately.


10.08.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


Case No. 159/2021 CR No. 19/2021 Mehmood Pracha Vs. State

10.08.2021

Present: Sh. Sanawar, Ld. Counsel for revisionist through VC.

Sh. Amit Prasad, Ld. SPP alongwith Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld.

Addl. PP for State through VC.

Ms. Avneet Kaur, Ld. Local Commissioner present in

court.

IO/SI Rakesh Kumar present through VC.




Report of Local Commissioner filed. Same is taken on

record.

Accordingly, matter is listed for arguments on 18.08.2021.


immediately.


10.08.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


Case No. 2/2018 SEBI Vs. Kalpbut Real Estate Ltd. 10.08.2021

Present: Sh. Ashish Aggarwal and Ms. Gourisha Aggarwal, Ld.

Counsels for SEBI through VC.

Accused no.1 is a company.

Other accused persons are absent.

Sh. Manish Batra, Ld. Counsel for accused persons

through VC.




Let court notice be issued to the all the accused persons

for NDOH.

Accordingly, matter is listed for arguments on charge on

06.10.2021.


immediately.


10.08.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


FIR No. 02/2014 PS Special Cell State V. Md. Kaiyum @ Kaiyum & Ors. 10.08.2021

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

Accused persons are absent.

Sh. Bishnu Kumar, Ld. Counsel for Md. Kaiyum @

Kaiyum and Md. Habibuddin through VC.




Issue notice to accused persons for the next date of

hearing.

On account of suspended functioning of the court

because of Covid, no PW has been summoned for today.

Accordingly, matter is listed for PE on 01.12.2021.


immediately.


10.08.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


FIR No. 07/2018 PS Special Cell State V. Narender Kumar 10.08.2021


Accused is are absent.

Sh. Dinesh Pandey, Ld. Counsel for accused present in

the court.




Issue notice to accused for the next date of hearing.





immediately.


10.08.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


FIR No. 14/2018 PS Mandir Marg State V. Smt. K.V. Rama & Anr. 10.08.2021


Sh. Shubham Gawande, Ld. Counsel for accused Shyam

Singh alongwith accused who is on interim bail VC.

Sh. Sumit Kumar, Ld. Counsel for accused K.V. Rama

alongwith accused who is on interim bail through VC.


Fresh Vakalatnama filed by counsel Sh. Shubham

Gawande on behalf of accused Shyam Singh. Same is taken on record.







immediately.


10.08.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


FIR No. 23/2019 PS Special Cell State V. Sukhvinder @ Sanju & Ors. 10.08.2021


Accused Arpit Chhillar present on bail through VC.

Accused Ravinder present on bail in person in the court.

Accused Sukhvinder @ Sanju present from J/C through

VC.

Sh. Fahim Khan and Sh. Aquib, Ld. Counsels for

accused Ravinder through VC.




Issue production warrants against accused, who is/ are in

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





immediately.


10.08.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


FIR No. 93/2019 PS Connaught Place State V. Arun @ Tanni @ Tarun & Anr. 10.08.2021



on behalf of the accused persons.




Issue production warrants against accused, who is/ are in

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





immediately.


10.08.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


FIR No. 256/2020 PS Special Cell State V. Anoop Kumar & Ors. 10.08.2021


Sh. Naveen, Ld. Counsel for accused Anoop Kumar

through alongwith accused through VC.

Sh. Himanshu Saxena, Ld. Counsel for accused Naveen

Khemka alongwith accused through VC.








immediately.


10.08.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


Case No. 107/2019 CA No. 30/2019 Manav Parhawk Vs. Chiya Singh

10.08.2021

Present: None has joined the proceedings via video conferencing

on behalf of both the parties.


None has appeared on behalf of both the parties,

therefore, let court notice be issued to both the parties as well as their

counsels for NDOH.

Matter is listed for arguments on 20.09.2021.


immediately.


10.08.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


Case No. 97/2020 Deepak Bhatia Etc. V. Ritika Vig Etc.

10.08.2021

Present: None has joined the proceedings via video conferencing

on behalf of both the parties.


None has appeared on behalf of both the parties,

therefore, let court notice be issued to both the parties as well as their

counsel for NDOH.

Matter is listed for arguments on 11.10.2021.


immediately.


10.08.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


State vs. S.S Paul & Ors FIR No. 42/2006 PS : Special Cell 10.08.2021 Present: Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for State through VC. Applicant/accused S. S. Paul is present through VC.

Present is an application moved by applicant/accused S. S. Paul

seeking permission to visit his native place at Calcutta from 18.08.2021 to

31.08.2021. It is further submitted that the applicant/ accused was permitted to

visit his sister's place at Jaipur and his native place Calcutta several times,

including visit to place like Dehradun, Haridwar, Chandigarh, Nainital, Kainchi

Dham etc. It is further submitted that he undertakes to remain available on his

mobile number 8700514906 and assures to return on time as earlier. It is thus

prayed that he be allowed to visit Kolkata between the period as mentioned

above.

No objection Certificate to the application filed by Ms. Radha

Paul surety of the of the applicant / accused. Same is taken on record.

Heard.

In view of the submissions made the application of

applicant/accused is allowed and he is permitted to visit his native place at

Kolkata w.e.f 18.08.2021 to 31.08.2021 subject to the following condition:-

1. That he shall furnish his operational mobile number and also of his parents to the SHO/IO concerned.

2. That he shall always keep the location ‘on’ of his given mobile number.

3. That he shall not try to contact any of the witnesses directly or indirectly.

Application is disposed off accordingly.

Copy of the order be also sent to the IO/SHO concerned.

Copy of the order be given dasti.

(Dharmender Rana) ASJ-02/NDD/PHC/ND

10.08.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


FIR No. 22/2013 PS Special Cell

U/s 307/186/353/34 IPC State Vs. Manoj @ Band

10.08.2021

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

Sh. Akram Khan, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused

through VC.



Present is an application moved on behalf of

applicant/accused Manoj @ Band for grant of bail. It is submitted that

applicant/accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and

he is languishing in j.c since 04.06.2013. It is submitted that medical

condition of the applicant/accused is deteriorating day by day inside

the jail being a heart patient and requires another heart surgery. It is

stated that instant matter is at the stage of recording statement of

accused persons for the last three years and trial in the instant matter

is likely to consume considerable time due to present pandemic

situation; co-accused has already been granted bail and it is thus

prayed that he may also be released on bail.

Ld. Addl. PP has vehemently opposed the bail

application arguing that allegations involved in the present case are

very serious in nature and if applicant/accused is released, there is

possibility that he may hamper the fair course of trial.

I have heard and considered the submissions made by

Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused and Ld. Addl. PP for State.

Considering the grounds of parity and period of

incarceration, applicant/accused Manoj @ Band is admitted to bail on

his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties

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

MM and subject to the following conditions :

1. He shall appear on every date of hearing as fixed by this court,

2. He shall not leave the city of Delhi without the permission of

this court and under no circumstances shall leave the country,

3. He shall commit no offence whatsoever during the period that

he is on bail in instant FIR. In the event of there being any

FIR/DD entry/complaint lodged against him, it would be open

to the State to seek redressal in accordance with law.

Needless to say that nothing observed herein shall have

any bearing upon the merit of the case.

Application disposed off accordingly.


immediately.


10.08.2021

DHARMENDER RANA



U/s 120B IPC & 3,4,5 & 9 of O. S. Act State Vs. Harpal Singh

10.08.2021


Sh. Tej Pratap Singh, Ld counsel for applicant/accused

through VC.




applicant/accused Harpal Singh for grant of regular bail.

At joint request, list the bail application for consideration

on 20.08.2021.


10.08.2021

DHARMENDER RANA



U/s 186/353/307 IPC & 27 Arms Act State Vs. Arshu @ Imran

10.08.2021


SI Satish Kumar/applicant through VC.



Present is an application moved on behalf of applicant SI

Satish Kumar seeking release of bullet proof jacket on superdari which

was seized in the present matter and is presently lying in the malkhana.

It is submitted that FSL result has also been obtained. It is submitted that

the said bullet proof jacket is no more required for further investigation,

hence, the same may be released on superdari to the applicant.

Issue court notice of the instant application to the accused

persons as well as to their counsel for 16.08.2021.


10.08.2021

DHARMENDER RANA



U/s 186/353/307 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act State Vs. Faheem

10.08.2021






Satish Kumar seeking release of bullet proof jacket which was seized in

the present matter and is presently lying in the malkhana. It is submitted

that the instant matter has already been disposed off vide order dated

16.05.2016. It is submitted that the said bullet proof jacket is no more

required for further investigation, hence, the same may be released to

the applicant.



(Dharmender Rana)

ASJ-02, NDD/PHC/New Delhi 10.08.2021

DHARMENDER RANA



U/s 186/353/307 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act State Vs. Rais Khan

10.08.2021








It is submitted that the said bullet proof jacket is no more required for

further investigation, hence, the same may be released on superdari to

the applicant.




10.08.2021

DHARMENDER RANA



State Vs. Abdul Subhan Qureshi

10.08.2021



Accused Abdul Subhan Qureshi produced from JC

through VC.

Sh. Prashant Prakash, Ld. Counsel for accused Abdul

Subhan Qureshi through VC.






It is submitted that the said bullet proof jacket is no more required for

further investigation, hence, the same may be released on superdari to

the applicant.

Ld. Counsel for accused submitted that he has no

objection if the instant application is allowed.

In view of the submissions made, the instant application is

allowed and the bullet proof jacket be released to the applicant after

preparing panchnama of the bullet proof jacket, taking its photographs

from different angles and the same be duly countersigned by the

accused and the concerned IO.




10.08.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


Bail Application no. 1612/2021 FIR No. 176/2020

PS EOW U/s 420/406/120B IPC

State Vs. Sushil Kumar Chhibber

10.08.2021


Sh. Ankit Tandan, Ld counsel for applicant/accused

through VC.

Sh. Tarun Sharma, Ld. Counsel for complainant through

VC.

IO Insp. Manish Kumar is present through VC.




applicant/accused Sushil Kumar Chhibber for grant of anticipatory bail. It

is submitted that applicant/accused is apprehending his arrest in the

present case. It is submitted that applicant/accused has no role to play

in the alleged offence and even as per the FIR, no specific role has been

ascribed to the applicant/accused. It is submitted that the complainant

was not known to the applicant/accused directly in any manner and was

introduced to him through his brother-in-law Sanjay Sharma who was

known to him. It is submitted that on the asking of Sanjay Sharma, he

stood as a witness to the Sale Deed dated 28.03.2014 with respect to

property bearing no. 1043/D-12A, Mehrauli, Delhi, having no concern

with the sale and purchase of the aforesaid property and Sanjay Sharma

used to invest money through his relatives and friends. It is submitted

that applicant/accused had purchased a property bearing no. 1043-M/18,

Mehrauli, Delhi measuring 600 sq. yards having 25% share,

commensurate with the money invested by him, Harish Kumar Vaid was

having 30% share, Deepak Ahlawat was having 20% share and Ajay

Pasricha was having 25% share therein; certain portion of the said

property was sold to different buyers and the complainant was also

having full knowledge in this regard. It is submitted that the complainant

had no right, title or interest in the said property and the complainant

also failed to produce on record any documents to substantiate the

alleged payments made for the purchase of the said property.

It is submitted that in 2017, the applicant/accused was in

need of some money for his business and he wanted to sell his 25%

share in the said property to which Sanjay Sharma showed his

willingness to purchase the said share but being a government servant,

he could not buy the property and as such, a MOU was executed

between the complainant and the applicant/accused on 27.07.2017 on

the instructions of Sanjay Sharma on the assurance that they will pay the

money to the applicant/accused within time but no amount was paid to

the applicant/accused by Sanjay Sharma. It is submitted that Sanjay

Sharma requested the applicant/accused to carry out construction on

plots bearing No. B-509, Vasant Kunj Enclave, Delhi measuring 211 sq.

yards which was in the name of Kriti Sharma ( niece of Sanjay Sharma)

and B-12/A Vasant Kunj Enclave, Delhi by using undue influence, Sanjay

Sharma asked applicant/accused to carry out construction but despite

assurance, Sanjay Sharma failed to pay the cost of construction to the

applicant/accused nor he gave 2 BHK flat in B-509, Vasant Kunj Enclave,

Delhi to the applicant/accused as assured by him. It is submitted that

when applicant/accused made repeated requests, the complainant in the

presence of Sanjay Sharma, issued four cheques in favour of the

applicant/accused but requested him to wait for sometime as the

complainant was not having sufficient amount in his account and after

waiting for quite some time, the applicant/accused sold his 15% share to

one Savita and then Sanjay Sharma pressurized the applicant/accused

to execute GPA, Agreement to Sell, receipt and Will in favour of the

complainant which was got executed with respect to his 25% share

inadvertently and as such in the agreement to sell and receipt, no amount

was mentioned and further no payment was made by Sanjay Sharma or

complainant till date and since the documents were in possession of

Sanjay Sharma who was aware of all the facts, Sanjay Sharma used

pressure tactics against the applicant/accused and got his signatures on

several blank documents, pronote and also obtained six undated signed

cheques from him under force and coercion. It is submitted that in

Agreement to Sell dated 15.05.2019, the column of sales consideration

was left blank when the applicant/accused signed the same and it was

filled by the complainant later on. It is submitted that applicant/accused

had never sold or gave any selling rights in the above property to the

complainant in any manner and has not received a single penny towards

the aforesaid GPA etc. It is submitted that the complainant alongwith

Sanjay Sharma misused the cheques signed by him which were not

issued by him for discharge of any liability. It is submitted that in the legal

notice issued by the complainant, the complainant has submitted that the

applicant/accused issued four cheques amounting to Rs.2,53,75,000/-

which is totally contrary to the present FIR. It is submitted that the dispute

between the parties is purely civil in nature and a false and frivolous case

has been foisted against the applicant at the behest of Sanjay Sharma,

who is employed as an ACP with Delhi Police..

It is further submitted that applicant/accused, who is aged

about 54 years and is fully cooperating in the investigation, is suffering

from chronic disease of acute gastritis and is also a patient of Blood

Pressure and Sugar. It is submitted that he is the sole bread earner in

the family having responsibility of two children and his wife has recently

expired on 11.05.2021 due to Covid-19. It is submitted that

applicant/accused is ready to abide by any term or condition imposed by

this court while granting him anticipatory bail.

It is informed by Ld. Addl. PP that the IO has already

informed the Income Tax authorities regarding the huge cash

transactions involved in the instant matter.

Ld. Addl. PP has vehemently opposed the bail application

arguing that applicant/accused induced the complainant to invest money

on the pretext of getting a house of his choice in Delhi by misrepresenting

that they are running a good real estate business and can earn more

profits if complainant also invest with them; the complainant invested

money through bank channels and in cash in their project and the

applicant/accused again induced the complainant to further invest the

profit money of first property in the second property .It is further submitted

that the applicant/accused executed a Memorandum of Understanding

dated 27.07.2017 with the complainant for transfer of his 25% shares in

undivided property bearing no. 1043 M/18, Mehrauli against adjustment

of his earlier investment and profits thereof. It is submitted that after

execution of MOU, the applicant/accused fraudulently transferred portion

of property no. 1043 M/18, Mehrauli, Delhi to third persons in the year

2016, 2018 and 2019 and he again fraudulently executed GPA,

Agreement to Sell, Affidavit and receipt on 15.05.2019 for transfer of 25%

shares in undivided property bearing no. 1043 M/18, Mehrauli, Delhi by

way of notorized documents. It is further submitted that the

applicant/accused again fraudulently executed Will and GPA on

21.05.2019 for transfer of 25% shares in undivided property bearing no.

1043 M/18, Mehrauli, the documents of which were registered in the

office of Sub-Registrar in favour of the complainant despite having

knowledge of sale of 13% shares in the said property. It is submitted that

on 20.10.2019, the applicant/accused again executed an agreement to

the effect that he owe Rs.2,53,75,000/- to the complainant and issued

post dated cheques. It is submitted that the applicant/accused

fraudulently deposited the signed cheques which were given by the

complainant in fiduciary relation for use in emergency only; the

applicant/accused malafidely transferred the amount to his bank account

in the name of SAM Enterprises out of joint account of applicant/accused,

complainant and Sameesh Chawla; as per the cheques collected from

the bank, applicant/accused has transferred Rs.50,10,000/- to SAM

Enterprises including cash withdrawal of Rs.1,90,000/-. It is submitted

that investigation is still on going and custodial interrogation of

applicant/accused is very much required to recover the cheated money

and to unearth the conspiracy and if applicant/accused is released on

bail, he may hamper the fair course of investigation.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record.

Applicant/accused alongwith his associates have induced

the complainant to invest money with them on the pretext of getting him

a house of his choice in Delhi. It is reported that applicant/accused

executed a MOU dated 27.07.2017 with the complainant for transfer of

25% share in undivided property bearing no. 1043-M/18, Mehrauli

measuring about 600 Sq. yards. After execution of MOU, the

applicant/accused is reported to have fraudulently transferred

approximately 13% share in the said property to third persons. Despite

having already transferred 13% of the land, he again fraudulently

executed GPA, Agreement to Sell, receipts and affidavit on 15.05.2019

for transfer of 25% share in the above mentioned property by way of

notorized documents. Subsequently, on 21.05.2019, he again executed

a Will and GPA transferring the 25% share in the said property. The said

documents were duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar. The

applicant/accused, despite already having sold off about 13% share in

the above said property, yet fraudulently executed these documents in

favour of the complainant transferring about 25 % share in the above said

property. It is contended by the Ld. Defence counsel that these

documents were executed by the applicant/accused under the pressure

of ACP Sanjay Sharma, who happens to be the brother-in-law of the

complainant and infact the real beneficiary, upon whose instance these

benami transactions were executed in favour of the complainant. The

applicant/accused is himself an Ex-cop and it is incomprehensible that

as to why he has failed to report the matter to the senior authorities if at

all, any pressure was exerted upon him by the concerned ACP. In the

application, it is mentioned that 25% share was ‘inadvertently’

transferred. Apparently, the reasons cited by the applicant/accused

seems to be specious and an after thought to avoid his liability. I concur

with the Ld. Addl. PP that sustained custodial interrogation is desirable

for recovery of the cheated amount, to unearth the entire modus operandi

and for recovery of important piece of evidence viz. the diary used by the

applicant/accused to win over the trust and confidence of the

complainant and other miscellaneous documents like bank account

statements etc.

Considering the totality of circumstances, I do not find any

merits in the application at hand and the same is accordingly dismissed.



immediately.


10.08.2021

DHARMENDER RANA


Bail Matter No. 1102/21 FIR No. 36/21

PS Vasant Vihar State Vs. Mohd. Khurshid Alam

U/s 376 IPC

10.08.2021 Matter taken up through VC pursuant to directions issued by the

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide order No. 438/RG/DHC/2021

dated 22.07.2021.

Present: Sh. S.K. Kain, Ld. Addl. PP for the State through VC. Sh. Harpreet Singh Uppal, counsel for applicant/accused through VC. Sh. Syed Anis Nizami, counsel for complainant through VC. Ms. Sadhvi Bharadwaj, counsel for DCW through VC.

Counsel for the applicant/accused wishes to supply copy

to the IO of some conversations/chats that have taken place between

the applicant and the complainant.

IO may verify the same, as also, confront the parties with

the contents of the same and file his report within 5 days.

List this matter on 24.08.2021.

Interim order to continue.

Harjyot Singh Bhalla ADJ/ASJ/PO MACT/PHC/New Delhi Roster Judge

10.08.2021

Bail Matter No. 1492/21 FIR No. 70/21 PS Kishangarh

State Vs. Sumit U/s 302 IPC



dated 22.07.2021.

Present: Sh. S.K. Kain, Ld. Addl. PP for the State through VC. Ms. Swati Popli, counsel for applicant/accused through VC.

After some arguments, counsel wishes to withdraw the

present bail application.

Therefore, the present bail application is dismissed as

withdrawn.

Application disposed off.

Order dasti.

Harjyot Singh Bhalla

ADJ/ASJ/PO MACT/PHC/New Delhi Roster Judge

10.08.2021

Bail Matter No. 1586/21 FIR No. 200/21 PS IGI Airport

State Vs. Abhay Narayan Dwivedi U/s 408 IPC



dated 22.07.2021.

Present: Sh. S.K. Kain, Ld. Addl. PP for the State through VC. Sh. Aamir Chaudhary, counsel for applicant/accused through VC. Sh. Surbhit Nandan, counsel for complainant through VC.

At joint request, list this matter on 21.08.2021.


10.08.2021

Bail Matter No. 798/21 FIR No. 12/21 PS V K North

State Vs. Rajendra Pahadiya U/s 408/468/471 IPC



dated 22.07.2021.

Present: Sh. S.K. Kain, Ld. Addl. PP for the State through VC. Sh. Ranbir Sharma, counsel for applicant/accused

through VC. IO SI Hemant through VC.

IO is yet to investigate and verify the manner in which

payment was made to the account of the accused from the bank. Only

thereafter, IO can come to a conclusion, whether or not arrest of

accused is required and offence is made.

In case, IO comes to a conclusion that accused is required

to be arrested for further interrogation then he may issue notice to the

accused, 5 days in advance, so that accused can avail his remedies as

per law.

In the meanwhile, accused shall continue to co-operate in

the investigation.

Application disposed off accordingly.

Order dasti.


10.08.2021

Bail Matter No. 1636/21 FIR No. 407/21 PS V K South

State Vs. Ajit Singh U/s 387/506/379/451 IPC



dated 22.07.2021.

Present: Sh. S.K. Kain, Ld. Addl. PP for the State through VC. Sh. Amit Sharma, Senior Advocate alongwith Sh. Kunal Sharma, counsel for applicant/accused through VC.

Complainant is present through VC. IO SI Durgadas Rathore through VC.

It has been jointly submitted that the present matter may

be referred to the Mediation and in the meanwhile, the applicant shall

also deposit the amount, alleged to have been received from the

complainant, with the concerned court.

IO shall continue to carry out his investigation and seek

co-operation from the parties, as and when required.

Till the Mediation is pending, let there be no arrest.

List this matter on 28.08.2021.

Order dasti.


10.08.2021

IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHUTOSH KUMAR : ASJ : PATIALA HOUSE

COURTS : NEW DELHI.

Bail Application No. 1618/2021

Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Gupta Vs State

FIR No. 0295/2021

P.S. Naraina U/s 354/354D/341/392 IPC

10.08.2021

Vide 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 fresh bail/urgent criminal applications and pending bail applications

pertaining to New Delhi District Sessions Division through video-conferencing

mode in accordance with law.

This application u/s 439 Cr. P.C for grant of regular bail, moved

on behalf of applicant/accused Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Gupta, is pending.

Present : Sh. Arun Mahajan, Ld counsel for applicant/accused (through VC).

Sh. Yadvender Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for State (through VC).

IO SI Vikas (through VC).

Fresh reply to the bail application has been filed by the IO.

Heard. Perused.

At request of Ld counsel for applicant/accused, the present

application is dismissed-as-withdrawn with liberty to move afresh.

Application stand disposed of accordingly.

Dasti to all concerned.

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

conference hearing.

(Ashutosh Kumar)

Roster Judge/ASJ-01/Special Court POCSO

NDD/PHC/ND/10.08.2021/P


COURTS : NEW DELHI.


Mohd. Nazam Khan Vs State


Nazmul Sahar @ Rani Vs State


Nafisa Vs State

FIR No. 712/20

P.S. Sagarpur

U/s 498A/406/34 IPC

10.08.2021






These three applications u/s 438 Cr. P.C for grant of anticipatory

bail, moved on behalf of applicants/accused Mohd. Nazam Khan, Nazmul

Sahar @ Rani and Nafisa, are pending.

Present : Applicant/accused Mohd. Nazam Khan (Advocate) for himself as

well as for remaining two applicants/accused Nazmul Sahar @ Rani

and Nafisa (through VC).


Sh. Shakeel Ahmad, Ld counsel for the complainant with

complainant (through VC).

IO SI Ram Kishan in Court (through VC).

Applicant/accused Mohd. Nazam Khan is the husband of

complainant. Applicant/accused Nazmul Sahar @ Rani is the sister-in-law of the

complainant and applicant/accused Nafisa is mother-in-law of the complainant.

-2-

After grant of interim protection to the applicants/accused, IO had

filed the further status report on 04.08.2021 duly forwarded by the SHO

concerned.

Heard. Perused.

1. Applicant/accused Mohd. Nazam Khan (Advocate) for himself as

well as for remaining two applicants/accused Nazmul Sahar @ Rani and Nafisa,

has submitted that the false allegations have been levelled to extort money from

him whereas no such incidents as alleged, had taken place. He has further

submitted that he had given talaq to the complainant on 03.09.2020 as per the

personal laws of his religion, which is valid in the eyes of law. He has further

submitted that at present the complainant is residing separately at the first floor of

the matrimonial home, none of her stridhan articles were handed over to the

accused persons and rather the same are in her possession. It is further submitted

that all the accused persons have joined the investigation.

2. Per contra, Ld Addl. PP for the State, complainant and the Ld counsel

have strongly opposed the bail applications on the ground that there are specific

allegations mentioned in the complaint against the applicants/accused for

subjecting the complainant to cruelty and qua her harassment for dowry. It is also

submitted that immediately after the marriage, the accused persons pressurized

the complainant and pursuant thereto, the father of complainant started paying Rs.

10,000/- per month to them and after the death of the father of the complainant,

the said monthly payment got stopped.

3. IO has stated that the complaint in question was made to CAW Cell

on 22.10.2019 and the FIR in question was registered on 09.09.2020.

4. The case of domestic violence filed by the complainant against the

accused persons is pending before the concerned court of Ld MM.

-3-

5. IO has admitted that the victim is in possession and is residing in one

room on the first floor of her matrimonial home. From the further status report

dated 04.08.2021 of the IO, it is clear that only two jewellery articles of the

complainant worth Rs. 26,149/- and Rs. 6,190/- have been verified. Admittedly,

prior to the complaint of this case, no other written complaint was made by the

complainant to any authority with respect to the alleged cruelty or qua her

harassment for dowry. Furthermore, admittedly there is no medical document

including the treatment from any doctor qua any alleged injury received by the

complainant as a result of her beating.

6. IO has admitted that all the three accused persons have already

joined the investigation.

7. Considering the totality of the aforesaid and in the facts and

circumstances, it is ordered that in the event of arrest, applicants/accused Mohd.

Nazam Khan, Nazmul Sahar @ Rani and Nafisa shall be released on bail on their

furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety of the

like amount to the satisfaction of IO/SHO concerned. Further, all the three

applicants/accused are directed to join the investigation as and when required by

the IO/SHO and not to try to influence the witnesses or to tamper with the

evidence. Applications stand disposed of accordingly.

8. Dasti to all concerned.

9. This Court is satisfied qua audio & video connectivity of the video

conference hearing.

(Ashutosh Kumar)


NDD/PHC/ND/10.08.2021/P


COURTS : NEW DELHI.

Bail Application No.1926/2020

Deepak Vs State

FIR No. 0828/2020

P.S. Sagarpur U/s 498A/406/34 IPC

10.08.2021






This second bail application u/s 438 Cr. P.C for grant of

anticipatory bail is moved on behalf of applicant/accused Deepak.

Present : Sh. Sushil Raaja, Ld counsel for applicant/accused (through VC).


Sh. Shitiz Sharma, Ld counsel for complainant (through VC).

IO ASI Mahesh Kumar in court (through VC).

Persuant to the previous order, further status report of the IO has

been filed.

Heard. Perused.

At this stage, at the request of Ld counsel for applicant/accused, the

present application is dismissed-as-withdrawn with liberty to move afresh.




conference hearing.

(Ashutosh Kumar)


NDD/PHC/ND/10.08.2021/P


COURTS : NEW DELHI.


Sunita Rani Vs State


Ravi Shankar Vs State


Timsi Vs State


B.H. Singh (Pappu) Vs State

FIR No. 219/21

P.S. Inderpuri

U/s 498A/406/34 IPC

10.08.2021






These four applications u/s 438 Cr. P.C for grant of anticipatory

bail, moved on behalf of applicants/accused Sunita Rani, Ravi Shankar,

Timsi and B.H. Singh (Pappu), are pending.

Present : Ms. S.R. Padhy, Ld counsel for applicants/accused (through VC).


Complainant with Ld counsel Sh. Pravendra Kumar Sharma (through

VC).

IO WSI Richa Sharma (through VC).

Applicant/accused Sunita Rani is the mother-in-law of complainant.

Applicant/accused Ravi Shankar is the husband of complainant.

-2-

Applicant/accused Timsi is the maternal aunt-in-law of the complainant and

applicant/accused B.H. Singh (Pappu) is the maternal uncle-in-law of the

complainant.

Further status report of the IO has been filed.

Heard. Perused.

Re-notify for orders on 11.08.2021.


conference hearing.

(Ashutosh Kumar)


NDD/PHC/ND/10.08.2021/P

1) Bail application No. 1414/21

Deepanjali Rao Vs. State


G. K. Rao Vs. State


Mukesh Kumar Chaudhary Vs. State

FIR No. 192/21

PS : Inderpuri

U/s: 354/506/509/34 IPC

10.08.2021

Vide 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 fresh

bail/urgent criminal applications and pending bail applications pertaining to New Delhi

District Sessions Division through video-conferencing mode in accordance with law.

These three applications u/s 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail,

moved on behalf of the applicants namely Deepanjali Rao, G.K. Rao and Mukesh Kumar

Chaudhary, are pending.

Present: Sh. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Ld. Counsel for applicants/accused persons (through VC).


On 07.07.2021 Sh. S.V. Rateria, ld. Counsel for the complainant was present

through VC, but is absent today.

IO/SI Parveen Kumar of PS Inderpuri (through VC).

After grant of interim protection to the applicants /accused persons vide order

dated 07.07.2021, the IO had filed further reply on 07.08.2021.

Heard. Perused.

1. It is stated on behalf of the applicants/accused persons that a civil suit filed by

two of the applicants namely G.K. Rao and Mukesh Kumar Chaudhary qua illegal construction

against the complainant side was already pending and on the alleged date of incident, a prior

complaint qua theft of device for providing Internet connection against the complainant’s side

was made from the applicants’ side whereupon FIR No.191/2021 was registered and as an after

Contd…2/-

-2-

thought and to counter blast the said case FIR, the present false case FIR was registered on the

same date.

2. From the reply dated 07.7.2021 of the IO, it appears that a civil suit is pending

between the parties and that preventive action u/s 107/150 Cr.P.C. has already been initiated

against both the sides.

3. On submissions of ld. counsel for the applicant/accused, the IO has admitted that

the applicants/accused persons have joined the investigation and he (IO) does not require the

custodial interrogation of the applicants/accused persons.

4. Considering the totality of aforesaid facts and circumstances, including the prior

pendency of civil and criminal litigations between the parties, the fact that applicants have

already joined the investigation and IO has admitted that their custodial interrogation is not

required, it is ordered that in the event of arrest, all the applicants/accused persons shall be

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

the like amount to the satisfaction of IO/SHO concerned. However, it is made clear that the

applicants shall not try to influence, threaten or pressurize the material prosecution witnesses

and shall not tamper with the evidence. The applicants are directed to join the investigation as

and when required and to thoroughly cooperate in the same. In case it is prima facie brought to

the notice of the Court that the applicants are violating the said terms, their anticipatory bails

will be liable to be cancelled.

5. Applications are accordingly disposed of. Dasti to all concerned.

6. Bail application files be consigned to the Record Room.

Contd…3/-

-3-

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

hearing.

(Ashutosh Kumar)


NDD/PHC/ND/10.08.2021/B

Bail application No. 1635/21

Sagarika Bala Vs. State

FIR No. 173/21

PS : Naraina

U/s: 419/420/120B/34/467/468/471 IPC,

20/20A/21 ITA, 6 IWTA & 66C/66D ITA

10.08.2021

Vide 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 fresh

bail/urgent criminal applications and pending bail applications pertaining to New Delhi

District Sessions Division through video-conferencing mode in accordance with law.

This second application u/s 439 Cr. P.C for grant of bail has been moved on

behalf of applicant/accused Sagarika Bala.

Present: Sh. Shailendra Babbar, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused (through VC).


SI Mahesh Kumar of Cyber Cell, West District on behalf of IO Inspector Arun

Chauhan (through VC).

E-reply under the signature of IO Inspector Arun Chauhan has been filed.

Heard. Perused.

SI Mahesh Kumar has submitted that IO is unable to join the hearing as he has

gone to conduct some raid.

Arguments partly addressed by ld. counsel for the applicant/accused.

To my specific query, SI Mahesh Kumar has admitted that he is assisting the IO

in the investigation and that the role of the main accused Sarabjeet (owner) and another accused

Saurabh Gupta (blocker) came to the notice of investigating agency on the date of incident itself

i.e. 03.6.2021, the said accused persons are absconding, but no NBW against them has been

obtained till today as the IO was busy in investigation of another case, out of 22 accused

persons arrested, 21 were arrested on the date of incident itself i.e. 03.6.2021 and one was

arrested later on.

Inspite of the fact more than two months have passed, the IO has not obtained

NBWs against the aforesaid two accused persons, despite the fact that name and role of the

said accused persons is in the notice of the IO from the date of incident i.e. 03.6.2021 and the

Contd…2/-

-2-

said accused persons are absconding. It appears that the investigation qua the said accused

persons is not being carried out fairly and expeditiously. Hence, in my considered opinion, the

matter requires the personal indulgence of DCP concerned. Therefore, a copy of the said order

be served upon DCP concerned to personally monitor the investigation. DCP concerned is

requested to personally acknowledge the receipt of copy of this order.

Issue notice to IO for appearance on NDOH.

Re-notify on 12.8.2021.

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

hearing.

(Ashutosh Kumar)


NDD/PHC/ND/10.08.2021/B


COURTS : NEW DELHI.


Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Gupta Vs State

FIR No. 0295/2021

P.S. Naraina U/s 354/354D/341/392 IPC

10.08.2021






This application u/s 439 Cr. P.C for grant of regular bail, moved

on behalf of applicant/accused Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Gupta, is pending.

Present : Sh. Arun Mahajan, Ld counsel for applicant/accused (through VC).


IO SI Vikas (through VC).

Fresh reply to the bail application has been filed by the IO.

Heard. Perused.

At request of Ld counsel for applicant/accused, the present

application is dismissed-as-withdrawn with liberty to move afresh.




conference hearing.

(Ashutosh Kumar)


NDD/PHC/ND/10.08.2021/P


COURTS : NEW DELHI.


Mohd. Nazam Khan Vs State


Nazmul Sahar @ Rani Vs State


Nafisa Vs State

FIR No. 712/20

P.S. Sagarpur

U/s 498A/406/34 IPC

10.08.2021






These three applications u/s 438 Cr. P.C for grant of anticipatory

bail, moved on behalf of applicants/accused Mohd. Nazam Khan, Nazmul

Sahar @ Rani and Nafisa, are pending.

Present : Applicant/accused Mohd. Nazam Khan (Advocate) for himself as

well as for remaining two applicants/accused Nazmul Sahar @ Rani

and Nafisa (through VC).


Sh. Shakeel Ahmad, Ld counsel for the complainant with

complainant (through VC).

IO SI Ram Kishan in Court (through VC).

Applicant/accused Mohd. Nazam Khan is the husband of

complainant. Applicant/accused Nazmul Sahar @ Rani is the sister-in-law of the

complainant and applicant/accused Nafisa is mother-in-law of the complainant.

-2-

After grant of interim protection to the applicants/accused, IO had

filed the further status report on 04.08.2021 duly forwarded by the SHO

concerned.

Heard. Perused.

1. Applicant/accused Mohd. Nazam Khan (Advocate) for himself as

well as for remaining two applicants/accused Nazmul Sahar @ Rani and Nafisa,

has submitted that the false allegations have been levelled to extort money from

him whereas no such incidents as alleged, had taken place. He has further

submitted that he had given talaq to the complainant on 03.09.2020 as per the

personal laws of his religion, which is valid in the eyes of law. He has further

submitted that at present the complainant is residing separately at the first floor of

the matrimonial home, none of her stridhan articles were handed over to the

accused persons and rather the same are in her possession. It is further submitted

that all the accused persons have joined the investigation.

2. Per contra, Ld Addl. PP for the State, complainant and the Ld counsel

have strongly opposed the bail applications on the ground that there are specific

allegations mentioned in the complaint against the applicants/accused for

subjecting the complainant to cruelty and qua her harassment for dowry. It is also

submitted that immediately after the marriage, the accused persons pressurized

the complainant and pursuant thereto, the father of complainant started paying Rs.

10,000/- per month to them and after the death of the father of the complainant,

the said monthly payment got stopped.

3. IO has stated that the complaint in question was made to CAW Cell

on 22.10.2019 and the FIR in question was registered on 09.09.2020.

4. The case of domestic violence filed by the complainant against the

accused persons is pending before the concerned court of Ld MM.

-3-

5. IO has admitted that the victim is in possession and is residing in one

room on the first floor of her matrimonial home. From the further status report

dated 04.08.2021 of the IO, it is clear that only two jewellery articles of the

complainant worth Rs. 26,149/- and Rs. 6,190/- have been verified. Admittedly,

prior to the complaint of this case, no other written complaint was made by the

complainant to any authority with respect to the alleged cruelty or qua her

harassment for dowry. Furthermore, admittedly there is no medical document

including the treatment from any doctor qua any alleged injury received by the

complainant as a result of her beating.

6. IO has admitted that all the three accused persons have already

joined the investigation.

7. Considering the totality of the aforesaid and in the facts and

circumstances, it is ordered that in the event of arrest, applicants/accused Mohd.

Nazam Khan, Nazmul Sahar @ Rani and Nafisa shall be released on bail on their

furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety of the

like amount to the satisfaction of IO/SHO concerned. Further, all the three

applicants/accused are directed to join the investigation as and when required by

the IO/SHO and not to try to influence the witnesses or to tamper with the

evidence. Applications stand disposed of accordingly.

8. Dasti to all concerned.

9. This Court is satisfied qua audio & video connectivity of the video

conference hearing.

(Ashutosh Kumar)


NDD/PHC/ND/10.08.2021/P


COURTS : NEW DELHI.

Bail Application No.1926/2020

Deepak Vs State

FIR No. 0828/2020

P.S. Sagarpur U/s 498A/406/34 IPC

10.08.2021






This second bail application u/s 438 Cr. P.C for grant of

anticipatory bail is moved on behalf of applicant/accused Deepak.

Present : Sh. Sushil Raaja, Ld counsel for applicant/accused (through VC).


Sh. Shitiz Sharma, Ld counsel for complainant (through VC).

IO ASI Mahesh Kumar in court (through VC).

Persuant to the previous order, further status report of the IO has

been filed.

Heard. Perused.

At this stage, at the request of Ld counsel for applicant/accused, the

present application is dismissed-as-withdrawn with liberty to move afresh.




conference hearing.

(Ashutosh Kumar)


NDD/PHC/ND/10.08.2021/P


COURTS : NEW DELHI.


Sunita Rani Vs State


Ravi Shankar Vs State


Timsi Vs State


B.H. Singh (Pappu) Vs State

FIR No. 219/21

P.S. Inderpuri

U/s 498A/406/34 IPC

10.08.2021




pertaining to New Delhi District Sessions Division through video-conferencing mode in accordance with law.

These four applications u/s 438 Cr. P.C for grant of anticipatory

bail, moved on behalf of applicants/accused Sunita Rani, Ravi Shankar,

Timsi and B.H. Singh (Pappu), are pending.

Present : Ms. S.R. Padhy, Ld counsel for applicants/accused (through VC).


Complainant with Ld counsel Sh. Pravendra Kumar Sharma (through

VC).

IO WSI Richa Sharma (through VC).

Applicant/accused Sunita Rani is the mother-in-law of complainant.

Applicant/accused Ravi Shankar is the husband of complainant.

-2-

Applicant/accused Timsi is the maternal aunt-in-law of the complainant and

applicant/accused B.H. Singh (Pappu) is the maternal uncle-in-law of the

complainant.

Further status report of the IO has been filed.

Heard. Perused.

Re-notify for orders on 11.08.2021.


conference hearing.

(Ashutosh Kumar)


NDD/PHC/ND/10.08.2021/P

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

CR No. 145/21CC No. 41296/16 u/s 138 N.I. ActJai Bhagwan Vs. B.K. Malik

10.08.2021Matter taken up through Video Conferencing from

the Residence.

Vide Hon’ble High Court Notification/ order No.

438/RG/DHC/2021 dated 22.07.2021 recently, it was directed that

all the judicial officer shall endeavour to take up all the matters of

their respective courts through VC. Accordingly, matter is taken

up through VC.

File taken up today on an application as filed for early

hearing of the matter moved on behalf of the revisionist, which is

fixed for today.

Present: Sh. Vikas Saini, learned counsel for the

revisionist/accused, (through V/C).

Sh. Issaini and Sh. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsels

for the respondent/complainant.

Submissions heard on the application of the revisionist.

At the very outset, Learned counsel for the

respondent/complainant submits that he has not been served with

the copy of the revision petition as well as the application for

preponement of the matter listed today.

To this, learned counsel for the revisionist/accused

submits that he had served the copy of the petition to the learned

counsel for the respondents through electronic mode on

05.07.2021, however, to avoid any delay or inconvenience to the

learned counsel for respondent, he is supplying the electronic

copy of the same at this moment.

The copy of the petition and application has been provided

to the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant at this

juncture.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that before the

learned trial court matter is listed for final arguments on

11.08.2021 and in case any decision/order is passed by the

learned trial court then his revision petition shall become

infructuous. Thus, it is prayed that revision petition be taken up

earliest as per convenience of this court.

Upon this submission, learned counsel for the

respondent/complainant bonafidely submits that matter before the

learned trial court is listed for substitution of the LR’s of the

complainant /respondent and not for final arguments on

11.08.2021 ; and, in case learned trial court insisted upon for

addressing final arguments on merits of the case, he will co

operate with the learned counsel for the revisionist/accused and

shall also seek adjournment to address final arguments in the

matter.

It is urged by the learned counsel for the respondent

that matter before the learned trial court has already got delayed

by 15 years ; on one pretext or the other ; and also to a great

extent by the dilatory tack ticks adopted by the accused/revisionist

and, the complainant/ respondent has also expired during this time

and thus it is prayed that revision petition be disposed off

expeditiously to do justice in the matter.

In view of the submissions so made and in the interest

of justice, the application for pre ponement moved on behalf of

the revisionist is allowed.

In the mean time, at request of learned counsel for

respondent, reply, if any, be filed one week prior to NDOH with

advance copy to the opposite site.

As prayed, matter is adjourned for hearing final

arguments on the revision petition on 06.09.2021 and the date

already fixed in the matter i.e. 22.09.2021 stands cancelled.

TCR, if any, be summoned one day prior to the NDOH

and be sent back thereafter immediately to the concerned trial

court.

E copy of the order be provided to both the learned

counsel for the parties and be also sent to the learned trial court

for information and compliance.

The order be also uploaded on the official website of the

court.

Proceedings were conducted through video conference

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

any grievance regarding the audio and video transmission.

(Anil Antil) ASJ04/NDD/PHC/ND 10.08.2021

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

CA No. 61/2021Nidhi Deswal Vs. Gaurav Rathi.


the Residence.





up through VC.

Present: Ms Sudarshani, learned counsel for the appellant,

(through V/C).

Submissions heard.

In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for

the appellant, notice of the appeal be sent to the opposite party

through all modes for NDOH.

Learned counsel is also directed to take steps within

ten days from today and file affidavit of appellant mentioning that

steps for service of the respondent has been complied with.

Reply, if any, be filed by the respondent, if he wishes

to file the same with advance copy to opposite party on or before

the date fixed in the matter.

Renotify for consideration on 27.10.2021.

TCR, if any, be summoned one day prior to the NDOH

and be sent back thereafter immediately to the concerned court.


court.

Proceedings were conducted through video

conference and there was no complaint of any technical glitches

nor there was any grievance regarding the audio and video

transmission.


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

SC No. 198/2019 FIR No. 435/2018PS: Vasant Vihar State Vs. Sandeep @ Kalu


the Residence.





up through VC.

Present: Sh. S.K. Kain, Additional PP for the State (through

V/C).

Neither accused nor his counsel has joined the

proceedings despite repeated calls through VC.

No witness is present today.

In view of the directions received from Hon’ble High

Court of Delhi, matter is adjourned for the purpose already fixed.

The witnesses summoned for today be summoned

again for prosecution evidence on 04.12.2021 in terms of

previous orders through IO in case the physical hearing of the

courts is resumed.

IO and MHC(M) with case property, if any, be

summoned for date fixed in the matter.

The order be also uploaded on the official website of

the court.




(Anil Antil) ASJ04/NDD/PHC/ND

10.08.2021


SC No. 493/2019 FIR No. 295/2019PS: Vasant Kunj (S) State Vs. Harbir Singh Pal


the Residence.





up through VC.

Present: Sh. S.K. Kain, Additional PP for the State (through

V/C).

Neither accused nor his counsel has joined the

proceedings despite repeated calls through VC.

No witness is present today.

In view of the directions received from Hon’ble High

Court of Delhi, matter is adjourned for the purpose already fixed.

The witnesses summoned for today be summoned

again for prosecution evidence on 04.12.2021 in terms of

previous orders through IO in case the physical hearing of the

courts is resumed.

IO and MHC(M) with case property, if any, be

summoned for date fixed in the matter.

The order be also uploaded on the official website of

the court.




(Anil Antil) ASJ04/NDD/PHC/ND

10.08.2021


SC No. 196/2021CNR No. 5106/21FIR No. 580/2017P.S Vasant Kunj NorthU/s 135 Electricity ActState Vs. Rajesh Kumar


the Residence.

Fresh Electricity Case received on assignment by

the order of office of learned Principal District & Sessions

Judge, PHC, New Delhi.

It be checked and registered.





up through VC.

Present: Sh. S.K. Kain, learned Addl. PP for the State through

V/C.

None for the accused.

At this stage, adjournment is prayed by the learned

Add. PP for the State, submitting that case pertains to the year

2017 and now we are in the year 2021, neither the IO is present

nor the status of the accused, his role, involvement and limitation

to proceed in the matter is informed to him by the IO and without

the assistance of the IO, he is helpless and unable to explain the

same to the court through V/C.

Heard.

It appears that neither the IO nor any one ( his

subordinate police officer ) on his behalf has joined the

proceedings to explain the status and role of the accused in the

present case to the learned Add. PP as well as Court.

In facts, let notice be issued to the concerned SHO to

appear and explain as to why the IO has failed to perform his

fundamental duties to inform the status of the accused etc ; has

not joined the proceedings deliberately and himself opined to be

relinquished from his duties after filing the charge sheet before the

office of the New Delhi District.

Re notify for appearance of the SHO and further

proceedings in the matter on 08.09.2021.


court.





CR No. 149/21Parfait Hospitality (P) Ltd Vs Shiv Sancheti & Ors.

10.08.2021

Present: Sh C Parkash, Ld. counsel for revisionist through VC.

Sh Vinayak Bhandari, Ld. counsel for

respondents/complainant through VC.

Ld. counsel for respondents submits that he came to know

about the present case today itself through telephone of revisionist's counsel

and requested some more time to seek the instructions for filing reply and

vakalatnama.

Ld. counsel for revisionist submits that he will supply the copy

of revision petition along with documents to the counsel for respondents

today itself through email.

TCR already received.

List this revision petition for reply and arguments on

27.08.2021.

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

District.

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

10.08.2021

SC No. 323/2018NCB Vs Betty Rame

10.08.2021

Matter taken up through VC in terms of order No. 12958

13039/Admn./Prin.D&SJ/NDD/2021 dated 23.07.2021 passed by Ld.

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, NDD, New

Delhi.

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

Accused Betty Rame produced from JC through VC.

Sh J S Kushwaha, Ld. Counsel for accused through VC.

Arguments on behalf of accused concluded however Ld.

counsel for accused filed written submissions.

List this matter for filing of rejoinder/arguments on behalf of

NCB on 17.08.2021. Jail superintendent is directed to produce accused

Betty Rame on the said date physically.

Copy of the order be sent to jail superintendent for

compliance.

Order be uploaded on Delhi District Court Website.


10.08.2021

NCB Vs. Satyam Kumar Sah & Ors. SC No. 9216/16

10.08.2021

Present: Sh. Rajesh Manchanda, Ld. SPP for NCB through VC.

Accused persons namely Satyam Kumar Sah and Ashok Kumar

Tripathi produced from JC through VC.

Accused Santosh, Brahmpal and Ram Naresh are present on

bail through VC.

Sh Y K Saxena, Ld. Counsel for accused Santosh Kumar

through VC.

Sh Sumit Sharma, Ld. Amicus Curie for accused Satyam Sah

through VC.

Sh Nitin Joshi, Ld. Amicus Curie for accused Ram Naresh

through VC.

Sh S S Das, Ld. counsel for accused Brahmpal Singh through

VC.

Sh A K Ranjan, Ld. counsel for accused Ashok Kumar Tripathi

through VC.

Ld SPP requested some more time to draft the statement of

accused persons u/s 313 CrPC and requested short adjournment.

At request, list this matter for recording the statement of

accused persons u/s 313 CrPC for 23.08.2021. At request, list the pending

application for said date.

Copy of the order be sent to jail Superintendent with direction

to produce accused persons namely Ashok Kumar Tripathi and Satyam

Kumar Sah on the said date physically.


compliance.


10.08.2021

FIR No. 365/2020PS Vasant ViharState Vs. Aboh Caminus ArinzeCase No. SC/188/2020

10.08.2021

Matter taken up through VC in terms of order No. 1295813039/Admn./Prin.D&SJ/NDD/2021 dated 23.07.2021 passed by Ld.Principal District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts.

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

VC.

Sh Gopi Tandon, Ld. counsel for accused through VC.

Accused on regular bail and appeared through VC.

Case is today listed for PE however due to administrative

instructions PE could not be conducted.

Accordingly, list this case for PE on 25.10.2021.


(Ajay Kumar Jain) Spl. Judge NDPSNew Delhi/10.08.2021

NCB Vs. Erbil Han & Ors.Case No. SC/156/19

10.08.2021


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

Accused Erbil Han and Mahmoud Kurdeya produced from JC

through VC.

Accused Arjun Elawadi present on bail through VC.

Sh. Chetan Kumar, proxy counsel for accused Arjun Elawadi

through VC.

Case is today listed for arguments on charge however due to

administrative instructions the accused persons have not been produced

today physically.

Accordingly, list this case for arguments on charge on

03.09.2021. Jail superintendent is directed to produce accused persons on

the said date in accordance to prevailing administrative instructions of that

day.

NCB is directed to produce an interpreter for accused Erbil

Han on the next date of hearing. IO is also directed to appear on next date

of hearing.


compliance.



NCB Vs. Charanjit Singh & Ors.Crime No. VIII/03/DZU/2021

10.08.2021


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

All accused produced from JC through VC.

Sh. Prashant Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for accused Charanjit Singh

through VC.

Sh. R.D. Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for accused Guldeep Singh @

Gagan through VC.

Accused Charanjit Singh and Guldeep Singh @ Gagan submit

that copy of complaint alongwith documents be supplied to their counsels.

Accordingly, let the same be provided to their respective counsels against

proper receipt.

Copy of complaint alongwith documents of remaining accused

persons be supplied to them in jail.

List this case for scrutiny of documents/arguments on charge

on 27.08.2021. Jail superintendent is directed to produce accused persons

on the said date in accordance to prevailing administrative instructions of

that day.


compliance.



FIR No. 150/19PS InderpuriState Vs. MeenakshiCase No. SC/188/21

10.08.2021


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

VC.

Accused present on bail through VC.

Copy of chargesheet and documents be supplied to the

accused.

List this case for scrutiny of documents/arguments on charge

on 25.10.2021.


(Ajay Kumar Jain)Spl.JudgeNDPSNew Delhi/10.08.2021

M. No. 81/21U/s: 132 & 135 (I) (D) of Customs Act DRI Vs Ravinder Kumar SharmaFile No. DRI/HQCI/50D/Enq14/tnt8/2017I

10.08.2021

Present: Ms Pooja Bhaskar, proxy for Sh Satish Aggarwala, Ld SPP for

DRI through VC.

None for applicant/accused Ravinder Kumar Sharma.

At request, list this application for 13.09.2021.


District.


10.08.2021

FIR No.601/20PS NarainaKishore Majhi Vs State

10.08.2021

Present: Sh Rakesh Sharma and Ms Mandakini Jha, Ld. Counsels for

applicant/accused Kishore Majhi through VC.

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

Ld. Addl. PP submits that till date he has no knowledge

whether accused Kishore Majhi has joined the investigation or not however

Ld. counsel for accused submits that he has already joined the investigation.

Accordingly, list this application for 04.09.2021. In the

meanwhile, interim order to continue. IO is also directed to remain present

on the said date of hearing.



District.


10.08.2021

Case No. VIII/02/DZU/2019U/s: 9A/25A/29 NDPS Act NCB Vs Nagary Ally Kombo

10.08.2021


None for applicant/accused Nagary Ally Kombo.

One more opportunity given.

List this application for 03.09.2021.


District.


10.08.2021

At 12.30 pm

At this stage, Sh Anoop Kumar Gupta, Ld. counsel for

applicant/accused Nagary Ally Kombo has appeared through VC. He is

apprised of the next date of hearing.


10.08.2021

Case No. VIII/47/DZU/2020NCB Vs Rahimullah Sukhizada & Ors.

10.08.2021

Present: Sh Rajesh Manchanda, Ld. SPP for NCB through VC.

Sh Sunil Mehta, Ld. counsel for accused/applicant Abdullah

through VC.

Part arguments heard. Let IO be also called for the next date

of hearing.

List this application for further arguments on 18.08.2021.


District.


10.08.2021

Case No. VIII/02/DZU/2021NCB Vs Syed Javed Hussain & Ors.

10.08.2021


IO Anand Kumar through VC.

Sh Parikshit Sharma, Ld. counsel for accused/applicant

Amarjeet Singh Sandhu through VC.

This is an application for cancellation of NBWs filed on behalf

of accused Amarjeet Singh Sandhu.

Reply to this application filed by NCB. Copy supplied.

List this application for arguments on 12.08.2021. IO be also

called for said date.


District.


10.08.2021

Case No. VIII/28/DZU/2020NCB Vs Raja Jaswant Singh Sandhu

10.08.2021




This is an application for cancellation of NBWs filed on behalf

of accused Amarjeet Singh Sandhu.

Ld. SPP submits that IO is not well, therefore, requested short

time to file reply.

List this application for reply and arguments on 12.08.2021.

IO be also called for said date.


District.


10.08.2021

Case No. VIII/28/DZU/2020NCB Vs Raja Jaswant Singh Sandhu

10.08.2021




This is an application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of

accused Amarjeet Singh Sandhu.

Ld. SPP submits that IO is not well, therefore, requested short

time to file reply.

List this application for reply and arguments on 12.08.2021.

IO be also called for said date.


District.


10.08.2021

Case No. VIII/02/DZU/2021NCB Vs Syed Javed Hussain & Ors.

10.08.2021


IO Anand Kumar through VC.



This is an application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of

accused Amarjeet Singh Sandhu.

Reply to this application filed by NCB. Copy supplied.

List this application for arguments on 12.08.2021. IO be also

called for said date.


District.


10.08.2021

Case No. VIII/10/DZU/2021NCB Vs Kapil Agarwal & Anr.

10.08.2021


Sh B S Arora, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused Prajjwal

Bhardwaj through VC.

Ld. counsel submits that the condition of accused in jail is not

well and requested that a report be called from jail superintendent.

Accordingly, jail superintendent is directed to send a report of

accused Prajjwal Bhardwaj regarding his medical condition by the next date

of hearing.



compliance.


District.


10.08.2021

Case No. VIII/10/DZU/2021NCB Vs Kapil Agarwal & Anr.

10.08.2021


Sh B S Arora, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused Prajjwal

Bhardwaj through VC.

Ld. counsel for accused filed an application for granting

permission to the family members of accused to supply books, register and

pen in jail.

Let a report be called from jail superintendent in this regard

by the next date of hearing.



compliance.


District.


10.08.2021

state v. luo sang @ charlie peng fir no. 281/2020 u/s 420

Documents