kamlesh sarwal versus state -...

KAMLESH SARWAL VERSUS STATE

09.07.2015

Fresh revision petition has been received by way of assignment. It be checked

and registered, if in order.

Present : Revisionist in person.

Mr. Manoj Verma, Ld. counsel for revisionist.

Mr. Ram Pyara, Ld. Addl. PP for State/ respondent.

Ld. Addl. PP has accepted the notice on behalf of State. Copy be

supplied.

Along with this revision petition, an application seeking exemption

from filing certified copies has been moved. Certified copies be filed by the next

date of hearing. Application stands disposed off.

Put up on 15.07.2015 at 02:00 PM, as prayed. TCR be also

summoned.

(RAKESH KUMARI) Additional Sessions Judge

Special Judge (NDPS) (West) Delhi / 09.07.2015

CR No.58/14Deepak Madan V/s State & Ors.

09.07.2015


Mr. Hemanshu Saba, proxy counsel for Mr. J.P. Singh, Ld. counsel for revisionist.

Mr. Ram Pyara, Ld. Addl. PP for State/ respondent no.1.

Respondent no.2 Virender Singh in person.

Mr. Praveen Grewal, son of respondent no.4 in person.

Mr. Sushant M. Singh, Ld. counsel for respondents no.2 to 4.

Part arguments heard at length. Arguments on behalf of

respondents have been concluded. Adjournment sought. Granted.

Put up for rebuttal arguments on behalf of revisionist on 29.07.2015



CR No.3/15Anil Kumar V/s Jai Bharti

09.07.2015


Mr. Vinod K. Gandhi, Ld. counsel for revisionist.

Respondent no.1 in person.

Ms. Arti Sharma, Ld. counsel for respondent no.1.

Mr. Ram Pyara, Ld. Addl. PP for State/respondent no.2.

Part arguments heard.

Adjournment sought. Granted.

Put up for remaining arguments/ orders on 24.07.2015 at 02:00 PM.



FIR No.389/15P.S. Uttam Nagar

U/s 370/342/506 IPC State Vs. Kajal@ Mona

09.07.2015

Present : Mr. Ram Pyara, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for State.

Accused in J/C.

Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Ld. counsel for accused.

Today the case is fixed for arguments on charge, however, Ld.

counsel for accused seeks adjournment as he is not prepared with matter.

Granted.

Put up for arguments on charge on 21.07.2015.



IN THE COURT OF MR. RAKESH KUMAR1 : ASJ/ SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) :WEST DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI.

Bail Application No.4604FIR No.463/15P.S. Paschim Vihar

U/s 323/342/452/34 IPC State Vs. Manoj Kumar Bajaj

09.07.2015

The bail application has been received by way of assignment as per order passed

by Ld. District & Sessions Judge, West.


IO/SI Sumit in person with case file.

Mr. C.P. Malik, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused.

Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Ld. counsel for complainant.

Vakalatnama for applicant filed.

On the joint request, put up for consideration on 13.07.2015 at

12:00 noon, as prayed. Interim order to continue till the next date of hearing.



FIR No.949/14P.S. Khyala

U/s 307/34 IPC State Vs. Deepu etc.

09.07.2015

Fresh Sessions case has been received by way of assignment. It be checked and

registered, if in order.


All six accused Deepu, Vicky, Rahul Kapoor, Danish Alam, Abhishek Kirar and Kapil on bail.

Mr. Amit , Ld. counsel for accused no.1 & 6 Deepu and Kapil.

Mr. Sanjay Madan, Ld. counsel for accused no.3 & 4 Rahul & Danish

Mr. Mahender Singh, Ld. Counsel for accused no.5 Abhishek.

Vakalatnama for all the accused be filed by the next date of hearing.

Put up for arguments on charge on 26.08.2015. IO be summoned.



FIR No.164/13P.S. Nangloi

U/s 392/394/397/411/34 IPC State Vs. Pradeep Mittal etc.

09.07.2015


All three accused in J/C.

Mr. Chirag Mudgal, Ld. counsel for accused no.1 Pradeep Mittal.

Mr. Absar Ahmed, Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused no.2 Zakir Hussain

Mr. Subhash Chauhan, Ld. counsel for accused no.3 Puran.

Fresh vakalatnama on behalf of accused no.3 Puran filed.

Report of SI Ajay Kumar has been received and as per that Mr.

Gautam Roy, HOD/Sr. Scientific Officer, CFSL, Lodhi Colony has reported that

due to heavy pendency this case is still pending, however, it will be taken on

priority basis. Issue notice to Director, CFSL, Lodhi Colony to send the result on

priority basis keeping in view the fact that all three accused are in J/C in this

case since beginning. Notice be also issued to IO/SHO to collect the result and

file on the next date of hearing.

PW6 PSI Sunil Kumar partly recorded. His further examination in

chief is deferred at the request of Ld. Addl. PP for State for production of original

case file of case FIR No.198/13 u/s 302/397/34 IPC P.S. Sampla. Issue notice to

the Ahlmad of Mr. N.K. Singhal, Ld. ASJ, Rohtak through Ld. District & Sessions

Judge, Rohtak to produce the original file of case FIR No.198/13 u/s 302/297/34

IPC P.S. Sampla on the next date of hearing.

PW7 ASI Rajveer Singh examined and discharged. No other PW is

present.

Put up for further examination of PW6 PSI Sunil Kumar and

remaining PE on 10.08.2015.



FIR No.109/14P.S. Crime Branch

U/s 21 NDPS Act State Vs. Chima Orienta @Kelvin

09.07.2015


Accused in J/C.

Mr. B.C. Jain, Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused.

At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP for State has submitted that inadvertently

the charge u/s 14 of Foreigners Act has not been framed against the accused,

however, the chargesheet has been filed against the accused u/s 21 NDPS Act as

well as 14 of Foreigners Act and he has prayed for framing of additional charge

against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 14 of Foreigners Act. Ld.

Amicus Curiae for accused has no objection in case the additional charge

against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 14 of Foreigners Act is framed

today. Heard. Perused the record. In view of submissions and record and as

conceded by Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused, the additional charge for the

offence punishable u/s 14 of Foreigners Act is framed against the accused to

which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

PW6 SI Raj Malik examined and discharged. No other PW is

present or left. PE closed.

Put up for recording of statement of accused on 15.07.2015.



FIR No.1160/14P.S. Punjabi Bagh

U/s 392/397/411/34 IPC State Vs. Vinod

09.07.2015


Accused on bail.

Mr. B.C. Jain, Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused.

PW1 HC Mahavir Singh examined and discharged.

Witnesses Mr. Harish and Mr. Tek Chand Bairwa and also present,

however, Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused seeks adjournment submitting that he

was not in receipt of chargesheet, therefore, could not prepare the matter.

Granted. The present witnesses are discharged for today. No other PW is present

except the IO/ASI Baljor Singh.

Put up for remaining PE on 18.08.2015.



IN THE COURT OF MR. RAKESH KUMAR1 : ASJ/ SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) :WEST DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI.

Bail Application No.2218FIR No.989/14P.S. Khyala

U/s 498A/406/34 IPC State Vs. Ashwini Kumar Mishra

09.07.2015


Mr. D.P. Mishra, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused.

Ms. Anshu Saxena, Ld. counsel for complainant.

IO is absent. Issue notice to IO as well as SHO P.S. Khyala to appear

in person on the next date of hearing.

Ld. counsel for complainant seeks adjournment as due to illness of

father of complainant, the complainant was not in a position to come to talk for

compromise. Not opposed. Granted.

Put up for consideration on 29.07.2015, as prayed. Interim order to

continue till the next date of hearing.





09.07.2015

PW7 : Statement of ASI Rajveer Singh No.957/Rohtak at present posted at P.S. Sampla, Rohtak, Haryana.

On S.A.

Today I have brought the summoned record pertaining to

Malkhana register, PartI. As per record, on 24.06.2013 PSI Sunil Kumar posted at

P.S. Sampla deposited one black motorcycle make Pulsar bearing registration no.

plate of DL9SAE4874 in malkhana pertaining to DD No.46 and entry was made

in this regard at serial no.951 in Malkhana register, PartI by the MHC(M) ASI

Shri Bhagwan. The photocopy of that entry is now Ex.PW7/A(OS&R). I identify

the handwriting of ASI Shri Bhagwan as I have worked with him and seen his

writing and signing during the course of my official duties.

I have also brought the abovementioned Pulsar motorcycle today

which is parked in parking complex. The motorcycle is already Ex.P1.

XXXX by Mr. Chirag Mudgal, Ld. counsel for accused no.1 Pradeep Mittal

I am posted in P.S. Sampla since two years. It is correct that I have

no personal knowledge of the case and I am deposing only on behalf of record. It

is correct that in column no.3 in Ex.PW7/A there is overwriting at point encircled

X regarding time. I am not posted at MHC(M) and today I had just brought the

summoned record. It is wrong to suggest that the entry Ex.PW7/A is false and

fabricated.

XXXX by Mr. Absar Ahmed, Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused no.2 Zakir Hussain

On 24.06.2013 I was posted at P.S. Sampla as Head Constable.

Presently, I am posted as ASI. It is wrong to suggest that SI Sunil Kumar did not

deposit any motorcycle in malkhana on 24.06.2013 or that the entry Ex.PW7/A is

SC No.73/13 Page 1/2



09.07.2015/ PW7

ante dated and ante timed. It is wrong to suggest that I have never worked with

ASI Shri Bhagwan, the MHC(M) and due to this reason I cannot identify his

handwriting. ASI Shri Bhagwan is at present posted at P.S. Sampla. It is wrong to

suggest that I am deposing falsely at the instance of IO.

XXXXX by Mr. Subhash Chauhan, Ld. counsel for accused no.3 Puran

I adopt the crossexamination conducted on behalf of other

accused persons.

RO&AC (RAKESH KUMARI) Additional Sessions Judge





09.07.2015

PW6 : Statement of PSI Sunil Kumar, Incharge, Information Technology Cell, Superintendent of Police office, Rohtak, Haryana.

On S.A.

On 24.06.2013 I was posted at P.S. Sampla and was investigating the

case FIR No.198/13 u/s 302/397/34 IPC & 25 Arms Act. Accused Pradeep Mittal

present today in the court(correctly identified) and his two associates Kuldeep

and Surender @Kala were arrested by me in that case on 20.06.2013. They were

interrogated by me and they made disclosure statement on 24.06.2013 which

was recorded by me. Accused Pradeep Mittal made disclosure statement

regarding his involvement in this case FIR NO.164/13 u/s 392/394/397/411/34

IPC & 25 Arms Act P.S. Nangloi, Delhi.

I had informed at P.S. Nangloi in this regard and thereafter, the

IO/SI Balbir came in my office at P.S. Sampla and I had handed over the

photocopies of disclosure statement of accused Pradeep Mittal, seizure memo of

motorcycle no.DL19SE4874 and other relevant documents to him on

10.07.2013. SI Balbir Singh recorded my statement in this case. Original

documents of the photocopies mentioned above are in the original case file of

case FIR No.198/13 u/s 302/397/34 IPC P.S. Sampla which is pending in the

court of Mr. N.K. Singhal, Ld. ASJ, Rohtak.

I can identify the black Pulsar motorcycle seized by me in case FIR

No.198/13. At this stage, the witness and Ld. Defence counsel have gone

downstairs at Parking complex where the motorcycle has been brought in a

tempo parked in the parking complex. The motorcycle is now Ex.P1.

(further examination in chief is deferred at the request of Ld. Addl. PP for State for production of original case file of case FIR No.198/13 u/s 302/397/34 IPC P.S. Sampla)RO&AC (RAKESH KUMARI)

Additional Sessions Judge Special Judge (NDPS) (West) Delhi / 09.07.2015




09.07.2015

PW6 : Statement of SI Raj Malik, No.D4456 at present posted at P.S. Chandni Mahal.

On S.A.

On 14.10.2014 I was posted at Narcotics Cell, Crime Branch,

Kotwali, Delhi. On that day, I was present in my office and at about 05:10 PM Ct.

Manoj Tyagi came to me and handed over the original rukka and copy of the FIR

of this case as the further investigation was assigned to me. I had gone through

the documents and at about 05:15 PM vide DD No.22 now Ex.PW6/A I along

with Ct. Pradeep left the office for the spot i.e. Metro Pillar No.715716, Nawada

Main Najafgarh Road where SI Sanjay Neolia and HC Jai Singh and accused

Chima Orienta @Kevin present today in the court(correctly identified) met me.

SI Sanjay Neolia had handed over me all the relevant documents prepared by

him as well as the custody of the accused.

At the instance of SI Sanjay Neolia, I had prepared the site plan

Ex.PW6/B bearing my signature at point A. I had recorded the statement of HC

Jai Singh. I had interrogated the accused. Being a Nigerian national, the accused

was unable to produce any legal document. He was arrested vide arrest memo

already Ex.PW5/F bearing my signature at point B. His personal search was

conducted vide memo already Ex.PW5/G bearing my signature at point B. In his

personal search the copy of the notice u/s 50 NDPS Act already Ex.PX and a sum

of Rs.2,500/ were recovered. I had recorded the disclosure statement of the

accused which is already Ex.PW5/H bearing my signature at point B.

Thereafter, we all along with the accused went to P.S. Crime Branch

where I had deposited the personal search articles of the accused with the

MHC(M). I had recorded the statement of SHO P.S. Crime Branch and the

MHC(M). Thereafter, we all alongwith the accused reached Narcotics Cell where

I had produced the accused before the Inspector Vivek Pathak, who also

SC NO.19/N/14 Page 1/2



09.07.2015/ PW6

interrogated the accused. I had recorded the statement of SI Sanjay Neolia and

Inspector Vivek Pathak. I had lodged arrival entry vide DD No.25 now Ex.PW6/C.

The copy of relevant logbook entry of use of government vehicle in this case is

Ex.PW6/1.

On 15.10.2014 I had prepared the special report u/s 57 NDPS Act,

copy of which is now Ex.PW6/D bearing my signature at point A which was

forwarded by Inspector Vivek Pathak and sent to the office of ACP through dak.

The information regarding arrest of accused was sent to FRRO as

well as High Commission, Embassy of Nigeria vide letter Ex.PW6/E.

The exhibits were sent to FSL. FSL result is Ex.PW6/F. The

chargesheet u/s 21 NDPS Act & 14 Foreigners Act was prepared and filed in the

court.

XXXXXX by Mr. B.C. Jain, Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused

It is correct that the recovery from the accused was not effected in

my presence. It is correct that I had not seen the contraband. It is correct that I

had not recorded the statement of Ct. Manoj Tyagi u/s 161 Cr.P.C. The

information regarding arrest of accused was given to one of his friends Chibuzo.



SC NO.19/N/14 Page 2/2

FIR No.18/14P.S. Special Cell

u/s 21/22/29 NDPS Act State Vs. Ram Avtar etc.

09.07.2015


Accused no.1, 2, 4 to 8 Ram Avtar, Girdhari Lal, Indel Kumar Singh, Sangita, Sunny Jaiswal, Nazira and Ramu Jaiswal in J/C.

Accused no.3 Pankaj @Bunty on interim bail which was granted vide order dated 24.04.2015 till 02.07.2015.

Mr. Sanjeev Manchanda, Ld. counsel for accused no.1 & 2.

Mr. Deepak Ghai, Ld. counsel for accused no.3 & 6.

Mr. Absar Ahmed, Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused no.4 & 7.

Mr. Vivek Kumar, Ld. counsel for accused no.5.

Ms. Madhu Kalia, Advocate is present. She has moved two separate

applications seeking exemption from personal appearance of witnesses Ms. Alka Arora

and Mr. Pushkar on the ground that Ms. Alka Arora is suffering from high B.P. and Sugar

and Mr. Pushkar has gone to Jaipur for some official work, therefore, they are unable to

appear today. Heard. Perused. Both the applications are allowed. Both the witnesses are

exempted from their personal appearance for today only.

PW5 Mr. Nem Chand partly recorded. His further examination in chief is

deferred at the request of Ld. Addl. PP for State as he needs certain clarification from

the IO. PW6 Ct. Sandeep partly recorded. His further examination in chief is deferred

for want of case property. No other PW is present.

IO is directed to be present positively on each and every date of hearing

being voluminous case.

Put up for order on interim bail application of accused no.8 Ramu Jaiswal

and remaining PE on the date already fixed i.e. 10.07.2015.



FIR No.1160/14P.S. Punjabi Bagh

U/s 392/397/411/34 IPC State Vs. Vinod

09.07.2015

PW1 : Statement of HC Mahavir Singh NO.1143/W, at present posted at P.S. Punjabi Bagh.

On S.A.

On 17.12.2014 I was working as a duty officer at PS Punjabi Bagh

from 04:00 PM to 12.00 midnight. On that day at about 11:05 PM, I received the

rukka prepared and sent by ASI Baljor Singh through Constable Rakesh. On the

basis of said rukka I got the present FIR recorded on computer through

computer operator. I have brought the original FIR today in the court which is

the computer print out and another computerized copy of the same is

Ex.PW1/A(OS&R). I made my endorsement on the original rukka which is

Ex.PW1/B. The Certificate u/s 65 B Evidence Act is Ex.PW1/C bearing my

signatures at point A. I had handed over the copy of the FIR and original rukka to

Ct. Rakesh to hand over the same to ASI Baljor Singh.

XXXX by Mr. B.C. Jain, Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused

Nil

Opportunity given



SC No.9/15 Page 1/1


U/s 21/22/29 NDPS Act State Vs. Ram Avtar etc.

09.07.2015

PW5 : Statement of Mr. Nem Chand S/o Mr. Beni Ram aged 25 years, R/o Village Mubarakpur, P.S. Hafizganj District Bareilly, U.P. Studied upto VIII Class. Agriculturist.

On S.A.

I have never got issued any mobile number/ SIM card of number

9675388063 from any cellular company or purchased from anyone. I have never

used said mobile number at any point of time.

(further examination in chief is deferred at the request of Ld. Addl. PP for State

as he needs certain clarification from the IO)



SC No.17/N/14 Page 1/1



09.07.2015

PW6 : Statement of Constable Sandeep, No.704/Special Branch, at present posted at Special Cell, Northern Range, SectorVI, Rohini, Delhi.

On S.A.

On 08.05.2014 I was posted at Special Cell. On that day I had joined

the investigation in this case with IO/SI Praveen Kumar. At about 10:15 AM, I

along with SI Praveen Kumar reached FSL office, Madhuban Chowk, Delhi.

Accused persons Ram Avtar @Rama, Sangita, Pankaj @Bunty, Indel Kumar and

Sunny Jaiswal, present today in the court(correctly identified) were produced

from J/C were also produced in FSL office. SI Praveen Kumar had prompted on

transcription of accused Ram Avtar @Rama in presence of FSL official and the

voice of the accused was recorded in Tseries audio cassette and the cassette was

marked as S1. Thereafter, the copy of that cassette was prepared by FSL official

in my presence which was marked as S2. The accused had put his signature on

both the cassettes.

Thereafter, the cassette of voice sample of accused Sangita was

prepared by FSL Official by the same method in my presence. The cassette was

marked S3. The copy of cassette was prepared and marked S4. The accused

had put her signature on both the cassettes.

In the same manner, the cassette of voice sample of accused Pankaj

@Bunty was prepared by FSL Official by the same method in my presence. The

cassette was marked S5. The copy of cassette was prepared and marked S6.

The accused had put his signature on both the cassettes.

The cassette of voice sample of accused Indel Kumar was prepared

by FSL Official by the same method in my presence. The cassette was marked

S7. The copy of cassette was prepared and marked S8. The accused had put his

signature on both the cassettes.




09.07.2015/ PW6

Accused Sunny Jaiswal had given voice sample without any

prompting to FSL official and the same was recorded in audio cassette which

was marked S9 and the copy thereof was prepared and marked S10. The

accused had put his signature on both the cassettes.

All the ten cassettes were kept in separate envelopes and sealed

with the seal of PK and the ten exhibits were marked as S1 to S10. These

cassettes were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A bearing my signature at

point A. Seal of PK after use was handed over to me by SI Praveen Kumar.

I along with SI Praveen Kumar reached P.S. Special Cell, Lodhi

Colony and SI Praveen Kumar deposited the exhibits in malkhana. I handed over

the seal of PK to SI Praveen Kumar on 09.05.2014 in evening in office of Special

Cell. IO/Inspector Attar Singh recorded my statement on 10.05.2014 in my office.

I can identify the case property, if shown to me.

(further examination in chief is deferred for want of case property)




IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMARI:ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE:NDPS ACT: WEST:DELHI

Bail Application No.4632FIR No.254/2015P.S. Patel Nagar U/s 363/364A/482/420/467/468/471/120B IPCState Vs. Amandeep Singh Kohli

09.07.2015Present: Sh. Ram Pyara, Ld. Addl. P.P. for State.

Ld. counsel for accused/applicant.Today the application is fixed for orders upon which

arguments have already been heard in details.It is submitted by Ld. counsel for accused/applicant that

accused has been falsely implicated in this case. The alleged incident took place on 21.03.2015 around 10.00 PM. The child admittedly came back to his home next day i.e. 22.03.2015 at 5.45 AM. The statement of victim recorded by the IO U/s 161 Cr.P.C is totally contrary to the statement recorded by Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Court U/s 164 Cr.P.C wherein the child has never said that the car was driven by a sardar or he was ever ill treated. Even no medical examination of child was got conducted, as refused by the complainant. Further no investigation has been done by the IO about the owners of two mobile phone numbers i.e. 9560582207 and 8447183270, from which the prosecution alleges that ransom call has been made to the complainant, which are registered in the name of Bahoree, a relative of Krishan Parihar and Rajinder Kumar. Further there was a considerable delay of about 2024 hours in the lodging of complaint/FIR by Krishna Parihar and Rajinder Kumar about the snatching of their phones which cast a serious doubt on the prosecution case against the applicant. Further the date of arrest of other coaccused namely Chetan Sharma and Gyandeep, who have alleged to have given a disclosure statement implicating the applicant in the offence leading to the arrest of the applicant on 26.03.2015 is a big question mark, as the date of arrest of said coaccused persons is shown in column no.11 of the charge sheet as 24.03.2015, whereas the arrest of said coaccused, in the memo of arrest, is shown on 25.03.2015 at 9.30 PM. There is no direct evidence against the applicant connecting him with the alleged

offence. Further the prosecution is silent on the aspect of investigation of the owner of car with the last four digit 5823 as alleged to have been noted down by Krishna Parihar. Even believing the prosecution case for the sake of arguments, it is hard to believe that a person will drive in the roads of Delhi with a kidnapped child at the back seat of his car that too on a Saturday night of Navratra festival with the police looking for the kidnapped child. The prosecution case is full of holes and latches. Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, who is only 23 years of age and was employed in a reputed company as a Sales Executive and was returning from Mumbai after attending a business conference on behalf of his company, when he was arrested by the Vadodra Police on 26.03.2015. Further admittedly, no ransom was ever paid and no recovery of any article has been effected from the applicant. The victim as per prosecution story was never manhandled nor was ever treated cruelty.

Per contra, according to Ld. Addl. PP for the State the allegations levelled against the accused/applicant are of serious nature. During the course of investigation, the kidnapped child was examined, who came back to his house in the morning of 22.03.2015, and he stated that he was kidnapped by three people from in front of his house while he was returning from the park after playing. They asked his parents mobile number and made call to his parents for ransom. Later on, when they felt that they will be caught by police, one of them (who was Sardar) left him at Sidhartha Hotel near East Patel Nagar. During the course of investigation accused namely Chetan Sharma @ Honey, Gyandeep @ Sumit and Amandeep (applicant) had been arrested in the above said case and they disclosed that they had kidnapped the child Dhruv and a call was made by them for the ransom of Rs.30 Lakhs. They also disclosed that they also snatched mobile phones from the different places and used these phones in making ransom calls. They had also used two vehicles no.DL7CL 8672 Santro Car and Innova car bearing registration no.DL12CD0956 in the commission of above said crime. They used the fake number plate bearing no.DL72CA5823 in Innova Car for committing the crime. A cricket bat of child Dhruv had been recovered and identified by the child. All the above accused arrested and refused to participate in TIP proceeding. As regarding to the above said two snatched mobile phones, two separate cases was registered at PS DBG Road, New Delhi and PS Ranjit Nagar vide FIR No.199/2015 and FIR No.169/2015

respectively. Further during the course of investigation, it came into notice that accused Chetan Sharma had used fake rent agreement to procure the SIM of Voda Company and Gyandeep @ Summit has signed on it as a witness.

Having heard the submissions and counter submissions of both the sides and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that accused is in JC since 26.03.2015 and he is no more required for the purpose of custodial interrogation; investigation in the matter has been completed; accused/applicant has clean antecedents behind him; accused has roots in the society and he is ready to abide by the condition imposed upon him while granting the bail, I hereby enlarge the accused/applicant on bail on his furnishing of personal bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/ with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Ld. MM/Duty MM, Delhi with the condition that applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and will not indulge in any illegal or criminal activity and shall not threaten any witness or tamper with the evidence, if done so, the prosecution shall be free to file an appropriate application for recalling the order of grant of bail.

With this the application stands disposed off. Copy of the order be given dasti to applicant.

(RAKESH KUMARI) Additional Sessions Judge Special Judge (NDPS)

(West) Delhi/09.07.2015


Bail Application No.4960FIR No.415/2015P.S. Patel Nagar U/s 376 IPCState Vs. Ketan Sharma


Sh. Surender Tyagi and Sh. Abhey Kumar, Ld. counsels for accused/applicant.Complainant in her person with her mother.IO ASI Kiran Sethi in person, who has filed her report.Arguments heard.Put up on 10.07.2015 for orders.


(West) Delhi/09.07.2015


Bail Application No.4956FIR No.366/2015P.S. Khyala U/s 392/411/34 IPCState Vs. Deepak


Ld. counsel for accused/applicant.IO ASI Khushi Ram in person,who has filed report.Arguments heard. Having heard the submissions and counter submissions of

both the sides and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that accused is in JC since 08.06.2015 and he is no more required for the purpose of custodial interrogation; investigation in the matter has been completed; accused/applicant has clean antecedents behind him; accused has roots in the society and he is ready to abide by the condition imposed upon him while granting the bail, I hereby enlarge the accused/applicant on bail on his furnishing of personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/ with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Ld. MM/Duty MM, Delhi with the condition that applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and will not indulge in any illegal or criminal activity and shall not threaten any witness or tamper with the evidence, if done so, the prosecution shall be free to file an appropriate application for recalling the order of grant of bail.



(West) Delhi/09.07.2015


Bail Application No.4851FIR No.395/2015P.S. Khyala U/s 451/354/509 IPCState Vs. Ghanish @ Golu

09.07.2015 This is an application, filed U/s 438 Cr.P.C, for grant of anticipatory bail.Present: Sh. Ram Pyara, Ld. Addl. P.P. for State.

Sh. Naveen Gaur, Ld. counsel for accused/applicant.IO ASI Surender Lamba in person, who has filed his report.Arguments heard. Having heard the rival submissions of both sides and keeping

in view the entire facts and circumstances of case particularly the fact that allegations levelled against the accused/applicant are of serious nature i.e. trespassing into the house of complainant by accused, holding of her hand, uttering of filthy words and misbehaving with complainant by accused have been levelled in the complaint; investigation is at the crucial stage; accused/applicant has been absconding and avoiding to join the investigation in the matter and his custodial interrogation is required for making proper investigation and pleas raised on behalf of accused/applicant are mainly related to the proposed defence which can not be looked into at this initial stage of investigation. As such, I am not inclined to enlarge the accused/applicant on anticipatory bail. Resultantly, the anticipatory bail application is hereby dismissed.

With this the application stands disposed off. Copy of the order be given dasti to Ld. Counsel for

accused/applicant.


(West) Delhi/09.07.2015


Bail Application No.4961FIR No.102/2015P.S. Mundka U/s 376 IPCState Vs. Murari Lal

09.07.2015This is an application, filed U/s 438 Cr.P.C, for grant of anticipatory bail.Present: Sh. Ram Pyara, Ld. Addl. P.P. for State.

Ld. counsel for accused/applicant.IO W/SI Sarita in person, who has filed her report. Arguments heard. Having heard the rival submissions of both sides and keeping

in view the entire facts and circumstances of case particularly the fact that allegations levelled against the accused/applicant are of very serious nature i.e. applicant knowing that complainant is a married lady, who is his own sisterinlaw (bhabhi) wife of his own brother and allured the complainant and made physical relations with her; investigation is at the crucial stage; accused/applicant has been absconding and avoiding to join the investigation in the matter and his custodial interrogation is also required for making proper investigation and pleas raised on behalf of accused/applicant are mainly related to the proposed defence which can not be looked into at this initial stage of investigation. As such, I am not inclined to enlarge the accused/applicant on bail. Resultantly, the bail application is hereby dismissed.

With this the application stands disposed off. Copy of the order be given dasti to Ld. Counsel for

accused/applicant.


(West) Delhi/09.07.2015


Bail Application No.4955FIR No.453/2015P.S. Patel Nagar U/s 380/457/411/34 IPCState Vs. Ranjeet Singh


Ld. counsel for accused/applicant.IO HC Ghamman Ram in person, who has filed report.Arguments partly heard. Put up on 20.07.2015 for remaining arguments.


(West) Delhi/09.07.2015


Bail Application No.3943, 3944 & 3991 Complaint Case No.203/1/D9FIR No.408/2001P.S. Ashok Vihar U/s 302/120B IPC1. Smt. Mamta2. Ram Shankar Gupta3. Ram Prasad Vs. 1. State

2. Dinesh Kumar Gupta 09.07.2015These are the three applications, filed U/s 438 Cr.P.C, filed on behalf of accused/applicants Smt. Mamta, Ram Shankar Gupta and Ram Prasad for grant of anticipatory bail of above named accused persons/applicants.Present: Sh. Ram Pyara, Ld. Addl. P.P. for State.

Sh. Vasu Dev Goswami, Ld. counsel for accused/applicants Mamta & Ram Shankar.Sh. Ankit Gupta, Ld. counsel for applicant Ram Prasad.Complainant Dinesh Kumar Gupta in his person with counsel Sh. R.R. Jha, Advocate from DLSA.Arguments partly heard.Put up on 16.07.2015 for remaining arguments. Till then

applicants are exempted from their personal appearance before Ld. Trial Court and no coercive step be taken against the accused/applicants.

Trail Court Record be retained. Copy of the order be sent to Ld. Trial Court for information. Copy of the order be also given dasti to the applicants.


(West) Delhi/09.07.2015


Bail Application No.4930FIR No.104/2015P.S. Nihal Vihar U/s 376 IPCState Vs. Ravi Kumar Mishra


Sh. Anil Kumar, Ld. counsel for accused/applicant.IO W/SI Koyal in person, who has filed her report.Trial Court Record received. Same is perused. Arguments partly heard.In this matter, the presence of SHO is required for making

certain clarifications. As such, SHO PS Nihal Vihar be called for the next date of hearing.

Put up this application on 20.07.2015 for remaining arguments. On that day, IO will remain present in her person. Till then accused/applicant is exempted from his personal appearance before Ld. Trial Court.

Trial Court Record be sent back to Ld. Trial Court and again called for 20.07.2015.

Copy of the order be sent to Ld. Trial Court for information. Copy of the order be also given dasti to accused/applicant.


(West) Delhi/09.07.2015


Bail Application No.3423FIR No.232/2015P.S. Kirti Nagar U/s 498A/406/34 IPCDheeraj Arora Vs. State


Ld. counsel for accused/applicant.Ld. counsel for complainant alongwith complainant.IO SI Pooran Mal in his person.Arguments heard.Having heard the submissions and counter submissions of both

the parties and keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the accused/applicant is not entitled for the relief claimed in the application for the reasons that allegations levelled against the accused/applicant are clear and specific which are serious in nature; specific allegations of harassment, both mental and physical, giving beatings to the complainant and also regarding demand of dowry have been levelled in the complaint; as per report, applicant has not cooperated in the investigation as he has neither received the notice to join the investigation nor was found present at his house during the visit of IO; investigation is at the crucial stage and pleas raised on behalf of accused/applicant are mainly related to the proposed defence which can not be looked into at this stage of investigation. As such, I am not inclined to enlarge the accused/applicant on anticipatory bail. Resultantly, the anticipatory bail application is hereby dismissed.

With this the application stands disposed off. Copy of the order be given dasti to Ld. Counsel for applicant.

(RAKESH KUMARI) ASJ/Spl. Judge (NDPS)

(West) Delhi/09.07.2015


Bail Application No.3855FIR No.264/2015P.S. Mundka U/s 302/186/353/332/427/34 IPCState Vs. Vijay


Ld. counsel for accused/applicant.Today the application is fixed for orders, upon which arguments

have already been heard in details.It is submitted by Ld. counsel for accused/applicant that applicant

is in JC since 11.05.2015. Applicant is of tender age and has recently appeared in class XIIth exams. It is further submitted that as per the case of prosecution, “the applicant was going on his motorcycle with his mother and there is allegation that the said motorcycle met with an accident with the DTC bus and thereafter, there was a minor scuffle between the driver of DTC and the applicant and sudden altercation between the parties took place and there was exchange of fists and blows between them. There was some damage to the DTC bus and thereafter, applicant with his mother ran away from the scene of occurrence”. As per allegations, the role attributed to the applicant is that he abused the driver of vehicle and he also started beating him with fists, kicks and helmet, which does not even connect the applicant with the alleged offence for the reasons that such alleged beatings can not attribute towards injuries that could be asserted as sufficient enough, in ordinary nature, so as to cause death of driver of bus. The medical evidence is also not in consonance to the case of prosecution as the medical evidence shows that the deceased had a diseased heart. The doctor, who had performed the postmortem examination gave the cause of death as 'coronary artery disease and sequel a nature case of death'. The doctor does not ascribe the death due to any external injury. Further blows and fists are alleged to have been given but no weapon of any kind has been used. The applicant has no criminal antecedent behind him. He is ready to abide by any condition imposed upon him at the time of grant of bail.

Per contra, according to Ld. Addl. PP the allegations leveled against the applicant/accused are of grave nature. During the course of investigation accused persons namely Vijay (applicant) and his mother Roshni Devi were

arrested in the matter and their disclosure statements were recorded, wherein they disclosed that they both had beaten the driver. Further the helmet used in the commission of crime was also got recovered on the instance of accused/applicant Vijay. Further postmortem of deceased was got conducted at SGM Mortuary and doctor in PM report opined that “the possibility of precipitation caused by mental distress as a result of assault can not be ruled out”. Further the applicant Vijay was the main aggressor and a stocky build person very much capable of causing fatal injuries. Moreover, accused has been charge sheeted for the offence of murder and in view of the gravity of offence and in the facts and circumstances of the case the applicant/accused does not deserve the relief as prayed for.

Having heard the submissions and counter submissions of both the sides and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that accused, who is a student, is in JC since 11.05.2015 and he is no more required for the purpose of custodial interrogation; investigation in the matter qua the applicant has been completed; accused/applicant has clean antecedents behind him; accused has roots in the society and he is ready to abide by the condition imposed upon him while granting the bail, I hereby enlarge the accused/applicant on bail on his furnishing of personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Ld. MM/Duty MM, Delhi with the condition that applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and will not indulge in any illegal or criminal activity and shall not threaten any witness or tamper with the evidence, if done so, the prosecution shall be free to file an appropriate application for recalling the order of grant of bail.



(West) Delhi/09.07.2015

kamlesh sarwal versus state -...

Documents