State vs. Suraj Soni @ Suraj Verma FIR No. 83/21 PS Krishna Nagar 15.04.2021 Present : Ld. APP for the State through VC. Ld. Counsel for accused through VC. An application for grant of u/s 167 Cr.P.0 is moved on behalf of accused Suraj Soni. Bail application perused. Reply filed by 10 also perused. Ld. APP for the State has opposed the bail application of the accused stating that in the present case the chargesheet was filed on 13.04.2021 and hence the chargesheet has been filed within the period prescribed u/s 167 (2) (a) (ii) Cr.PC. On the other hand, Id.counsel for the accused contended that in the present case, the accused has been chargesheeted for the offence u/s 406/506/34 IPC and thus the chargesheet was required to be filed within 60 days after the accused was arrested. The Id. counsel further contended that the accused was arrested on 11.02.2021 and thereafter the period of 60 days envisaged in Cr.PC by Section 167 (2) (a) (ii) expired on 11.04.2021 and yet chargesheet was not filed on 11.04.2021 and on 12.04.2021. On the other hand, the present application was filed on behalf of the accused on 13.04.2021. The Id.counsel also submitted that it has also come to his knowledge that on 13.04.2021 itself, the chargesheet was filed by the 10. The Id.counsel has also stated in the application that on 13.04.2021, the present accused has also been granted interim bail by Id. ASJ Sh. Ravinder Singh on the ground of marriage. Copy of the bail order dated 13.04.2021 of Id. ASJ Sh. Ravinder Singh has also been annexed with the application. I have perused the chargesheet. In the present case, the present accused Suraj Soni was arrested on 11.02.2021 at 08.30 pm at BKC, Mumbai as per memo and as per the transit order dated 12.02.2021 on record, contd....2 -2- the accused was produced before the the concerned Magistrate in Mumbai for seeking transit remand on 12.02.2021 at 12.00 pm. As per the said transit remand order, 10 was directed to produce the accused before the concerned in Delhi on 13.02.2021. It has been held in the case titled Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra (judgment of Supreme Court dated 23.09.2011) that the period of 60 days or 90 days as the case may be u/s 167 (2) (a) (ii) Cr.PC is to be calculated from the date of first remand and not from the date of arrest. Therefore in the present case the relevant date for the calculation of the period of 60 days would be 12.02.2021 as on that date the accused was remanded for the first time although for the purpose of transit. It is also settled law (reliance is placed upon the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Ravindran vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence dated 26.10.2020) that the date of first remand is to be excluded while the last date of the filing of chargesheet is to be included while calculating the stipulated period of filing of chargesheet as per Section 167 (2) (a) (ii) Cr.PC. Having said so, in the present case, the chargesheet was required to be filed by the 10 by 13.04.2021. Further, the 10 could have filed the chargesheet at any hour during working hour on 13.04.2021. The record reflects that on 13.04.2021 the chargesheet was filed and it has now been listed for consideration on 20.05.2021. As the chargesheet has been filed on the last day of the stipulated period of 60 days, the present application for statutory bail of the accused is not maintainable as the right of the accused to seek statutory bail arose after 13.04.21. Hence, the present application is dismissed. Copy of this order be given dasti to the Id.counsel and the same be uploaded to the Delhi District Website today itself. (A( nksha Vyas) MM -05(East) KKD Court Delhi15.04.2021 State vs. Akash Tyagi FIR No. 83/21 PS Krishna Nagar U/s 406/506/34 IPC

15.04.2021

Present : Ld. APP for the State through VC. Sh. Radhey lal Sharma, Id.counsel for the applicant through VC. This is an application for surrender cum bail. However, another application has been moved by the Id.counsel wherein he seeks adjournment on the hearing of this application for 19.04.2021. In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the present application stands adjourned for 19.04.2021. Issue notice to the 10, returnable for NDOH.

( an ksha Vyas) MM -05(East) KKD Court Delhi15.04.2021 State vs. Mohit FIR No. 102/21 PS PIA U/s 356/379/411 IPC 15.04.2021 Present : Ld. APP for the State through VC. LAC Ms.Sunita Singh for the accused through VC. An application for grant of bail u/s 437 Cr.P.0 is moved on behalf of accused Mohit. Bail application perused. Reply filed by 10 also perused. Ld. LAC for the accused has submitted that accused is in JC since 24.03.2021. Ld. LAC has further submitted that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further, recovery shown from the accused, if any, has been planted upon him. He is the sole bread earner of his family. Ld. Counsel has also submitted that accused is no more required for the purpose of investigation. Accused is ready to furnish reliable surety. Ld. APP for the State has opposed the bail application of the accused stating that the allegations are serious in nature. Further, the accused was apprehended at the spot itself and the stolen property of the complainant was recovered from the present accused and he can commit similar offence in future. Heard both the parties. In the present case, the accused is stated to be in J/C since 24.03.2021. Case property in the present case has already been recovered. Reply of 10 does not reveal any criminal antecedents of the accused. Further, the aspect of de-congestion of jails in light of Covid-19 pandemic is also a relevant consideration. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, accused is admitted to Court bail on furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount subject to the conditions that :- 1. The accused shall cooperate with the 10 during the investigation. 2.Accused shall not indulge in similar offence as that of which he is the accused. 3.He will not try to tamper with the and will not try to contact the complainant during the pendency of the case. Accordingly, bail application disposed off. Copy of this order be given dasti to the LAC for the accused and the same be uploaded on the Delhi District Court Website today itself. (Aaka Vyas) MM -05(East) KKD Court Delhi15.04.2021 State vs. Nazamuddin FIR No. 110/21 PS PIA U/s 379/411/34 IPC 15.04.2021 Present : Ld. APP for the State through VC. Sh. Rajiv Pratap Singh, Id.counsel for the accused through VC. An application for grant of bail u/s 437 Cr.P.0 is moved on behalf of accused Nazamuddin. Bail application perused. Reply filed by 10 also perused. Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that accused is in JC since 01.04.2021. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further, recovery shown from the accused, if any, has been planted upon him. He is the sole bread earner of his family. Ld. Counsel has also submitted that accused is no more required for the purpose of investigation. Accused is ready to furnish reliable surety. Ld. APP for the State has opposed the bail application of the accused stating that the allegations are serious in nature. Further, the accused was apprehended at the spot itself and he can commit similar offence in future. Heard both the parties. In the present case, the accused is stated to be in J/C since 01.04.2021. Case property in the present case has already been recovered. Reply of 10 does not reveal any criminal antecedents of the accused. As per reply of 10, accused is no more required for investigation. Further, the aspect of de-congestion of jails in light of Covid- 19 pandemic is also a relevant consideration. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, accused is admitted to Court bail on furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount subject to the conditions that :- 1. The accused shall cooperate with the 10 during the investigation. 2.Accused shall not indulge in similar offence as that of which he is the accused. 3.He will not try to tamper with the evidence and will not try to contact the complainant during the pendency of the case. Accordingly, bail application disposed off. Copy of this order be given dasti to the Id. Counsel for the accused and the same be uploaded on the Delhi District Court Website today itself. (Aakar c a Vyas) MM -05(East) KKD Court Delhi15.04.2021 State vs. Faim FIR No. 51/21 PS PIA U/s 379/411/34 IPC 15.04.2021 Present : Ld. APP for the State through VC. LAC Ms.Sunita Singh for the accused through VC. An application for grant of bail u/s 437 Cr.P.0 is moved on behalf of accused Faim. Bail application perused. Reply filed by 10 also perused. Ld. LAC for the accused has submitted that accused is in JC since 12.02.2021. Ld. LAC has further submitted that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is not a previous convict. Further, chargesheet has been filed in the present matter. Ld. LAC also submitted that accused is ready to furnish reliable surety. Ld. APP for the State has opposed the bail application of the accused stating that the allegations are serious in nature. Further, the accused was apprehended at the spot itself and he can commit similar offence in future. Heard both the parties. In the present case, the accused is stated to be in J/C since 12.02.2021. Case property in the present case has already been recovered. chargesheet has already been filed in the present matter. is likely to take time. No previous has been brought to the notice of undersigned by the 10. Further, the aspect of de-congestion of jails in light of Covid-19 pandemic is also a relevant consideration. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, accused is admitted to Court bail on furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount subject to the conditions that :- 1.Accused shall not indulge in similar offence as that of which he is the accused. 2.He will not try to tamper with the evidence and will not try to contact the complainant during the pendency of the case. Accordingly, bail application disposed off. Copy of this order be given dasti to the LAC for the accused and the same be uploaded on the Delhi District Court Website today itself. (AakarQkslria Vyas) MM -05(East) KKD Court Delhi15.04.2021 State vs. Kanta Jain FIR No. 429/99 PS Krishna Nagar

15.04.2021

Present : Ld. APP for the State through VC. Accused Kanta has already been acquitted on 18.07.2018 vide order of the Court. Applicant Sunil Jain has moved an application for release of FD in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- as mentioned in the application. As the matter has already been disposed off, application stands allowed and FD in the sum of Rs. 10000/- of the applicant/ surety be released to him/ endorsement cancelled as per rules. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant. Order be uploaded to the Delhi District Courts Website today itself.

(Aakanksha Vyas) MM -05(East) KKD Court Delhi15.04.2021