FIR No. 82/2020 PS Kishangarh State Vs Ramakant Jha U/S 392/411/34 IPC

FIR No. 82/2020 PS Kishangarh State Vs Ramakant Jha U/s 392/411/34 IPC

30.05.2020

This is an application moved under Section 437 Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant/accused Ramakant Jha seeking grant of bail.

Present : Sh. Lalan Kumar, Ld. APP for the State through VC. None for applicant/accused.

Learned counsel for applicant/accused has been contacted on phone and he states that he does not wish to make oral submissions. Reply filed by IO opposing the instant application. In the application, it is stated that the applicant/accused is in JC since 19.03.2020 and nothing incriminating has been recovered from his possession or at his instance and chargesheet has already been filed. It is prayed that the bail be granted to the applicant/accused. Heard. Perused. As per reply, the alleged snatch mobile phone has been recovered from the accused persons and the alleged offence was committed during day hours and the allegations against the applicant/accused are serious in nature. For these reasons, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant/accused, at this stage. The application is accordingly disposed of. Proceedings be sent to the Court concerned through proper channel. Copy be also sent to concerned Jail Superintendent for intimation and necessary record and also be provided dasti to Ld. Counsel for accused.

(PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 FIR No. 285/2020 PS Kishangarh State Vs Bablu @ Amit U/s 354/354A/323/506/509 IPC

30.05.2020

This is an application moved under Section 437 Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant/accused Bablu @ Amit seeking grant of bail.

Present : Sh. Lalan Kumar, Ld. APP for the State through VC. Sh. Arun Sharma, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused through VC.

Reply has been filed by IO opposing the instant application. Before deciding the instant application, this Court deems it appropriate to hear the victim of the present case and hence let the victim of the present case be notified through IO for NDOH. She be also apprised about the option of her appearance through videoconferencing and phone number of Reader / Ahlmad of the Court concerned be also intimated to her by IO for assistance. Application be relisted on 02.06.2020.

(PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 FIR No. 129/2020 PS Sagar Pur State Vs Rohan @ Chottu U/s 356/379/411 IPC 30.05.2020

This is an application moved under Section 437 Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant/accused Rohan @ Chottu seeking grant of interim bail for 45 days.

Present : Sh. Lalan Kumar, Ld. APP for the State through VC. Sh. A K Sharma, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.

It is stated in the application that the applicant/accused has been falsely framed in the present case and is in JC since 16.03.2020 and charge sheet has already been filed. Reply has been filed by IO opposing the instant application and it is stated that the applicant/accused is previously involved in the similar offences and he can jump bail, if granted. Heard. File perused. As per reply of the IO, there is no conviction of the applicant/accused in the similar offence and the offences alleged are covered under the category of offences mentioned in the Minutes of Meetings dated 14.05.2020 through Videoconferencing under the Chairpersonship of Hon’ble Justice Ms. Hima Kohli, Judge, High Court of Delhi and Executive Chairperson, Delhi State Legal Service Authority and in view of directions / guidelines given by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment titled as Shobha Gupta Vs. Union of India in WP (C) NO. 2945/2020 dated 23.03.2020 owing to the emergency situation to the pandemic Covid19, let applicant/accused Rohan @ Chottu be released on interim bail for a period of 45 days from the date of this order subject to furnishing of personal bond in a sum of Rs.15,000/ to the satisfaction of Ld. Jail Magistrate concerned. The application is accordingly disposed of. Applicant/accused Rohan @ Chottu is directed to surrender before concerned Jail Superintendent accordingly. Proceedings be sent to the Court concerned through proper channel. Copy be also sent to concerned Jail Superintendent for intimation and necessary record and also be provided dasti to Ld. Counsel for accused.

(PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 FIR No. 16/2020 PS Parliament Street State Vs Vikas Kumar U/s 420/468/471/120B IPC

30.05.2020

This is an application moved under Section 437 Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant/accused Vikas Kumar seeking grant of bail.

Present : Sh. Lalan Kumar, Ld. APP for the State through VC. Sh. Vivek Aggarwal, Ld. LAC for applicant/accused.

It is stated in the application that the applicant/accused is on interim bail till 03.06.2020 and investigation of the present case is already completed and judicial custody of the present case is no more required. Reply has been filed by IO opposing the instant application and it is stated that other accused persons are absconding and the fact of certain documents were made and printed is yet to be verified and if regular bail is granted, there is a possibility of tampering with the evidence. Heard. File perused. The allegations are serious in nature, investigation of the present case is still underway and could not be completed due to pandemic of Covid19 and other accused persons i.e. Shrikant Suman, Chandan Kumar and Sanjay Kumar are evading arrest and hence the possibility of tampering with the evidence cannot be denied at this stage. In view of the reasons, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant/accused. The application is accordingly disposed of. Proceedings be sent to the Court concerned through proper channel. Copy be also sent to concerned Jail Superintendent for intimation and necessary record and also be provided dasti to Ld. Counsel for accused.

(PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 FIR NO 08/2013 STATE VS HEMANT PS SPECIAL CELL U/S 25 ARMS ACT

30.05.2020

Present : Sh. Lalan Kumar, Ld. APP for the State through VC. None for applicant/accused Hemant.

Ld. counsel for applicant/accused has been contacted through telephone and he states that he is unable to make appearance through video conference as he is hospitalized. Further, reply has not been filed by IO. In these circumstances, IO is directed to file reply positively on 04.06.2020. Matter be relisted on 04.06.2020.

(PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 FIR NO 130/2020 STATE VS VISHESH JANGIR PS SPECIAL CELL U/S 419/420 IPC & 66C/66D IT ACT

30.05.2020

This is an application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of applicant/accused Vishesh Jangir seeking grant of bail.

Present : Sh. Lalan Kumar, Ld. APP for the State through VC. Sh. Gaurav Singh, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused Vishesh Jangir through VC.

Ld. counsel for applicant/accused submits that the applicant/accused is in JC since 25.05.2020 and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant/accused. He prays for grant of bail to the applicant/accused. Reply filed by the IO mentioning that the investigation of the present case is at initial stage and a large of victims who have been duped are likely to turn up to join investigation and are yet to be examined. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has opposed the instant bail application by stating that the allegations against the applicant/accused are serious in nature. Heard. Perused. Since, the investigation of the present case is at nascent stage and a large number of victims are yet to be examined, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant/accused, at this stage. Proceedings be sent to the Court concerned through proper channel. Copy be also sent to concerned Jail Superintendent for intimation and necessary record and also be provided dasti to Ld. Counsel for accused. (PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 FIR NO 28/2020 STATE VS JAHID ALI PS SOUTH CAMPUS U/S 392/411/34 IPC

30.05.2020

This is an application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of applicant/accused Jahid Ali seeking grant of bail.

Present : Sh. Lalan Kumar, Ld. APP for the State through VC. Sh. A K Sheoran, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused Jahid Ali through VC.

Ld. counsel for applicant/accused submits that the applicant/accused is in JC since 13.03.2020 and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that nothing recovery has been recovered from the possession of the applicant/accused and investigation qua him is completed. He prays for grant of bail to the applicant/accused. Reply filed by the IO mentioning that the robbed mobile has not yet been recovered and the chargesheet of the present case has already been filed before the concerned Court. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has opposed the instant bail application by stating that the allegations against the applicant/accused are serious in nature. Heard. Perused. Applicant/accused has been in custody in the present case since 13.03.2020, chargesheet of the present case has already been filed and the alleged stolen mobile phone has not been recovered as yet. Hence, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant/accused behind bars in the present case. Thus, let accused Jahid Ali be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/ each. Application is accordingly disposed of. Proceedings be sent to the Court concerned through proper channel. Copy be also sent to concerned Jail Superintendent for intimation and necessary record and also be provided dasti to Ld. Counsel for accused. (PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 FIR NO 421/2020 STATE VS HEMANT KUMAR @ KAMAL PS NARAINA U/S 33/38/58 DELHI EXCISE ACT

30.05.2020

This is an application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of applicant/accused Hemant Kumar @ Kamal seeking grant of bail. Present : Sh. Lalan Kumar, Ld. APP for the State through VC. Sh. A K Sheoran, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused Hemant Kumar @ Kamal through VC.

Ld. counsel for applicant/accused submits that the applicant/accused is in JC since 25.05.2020 and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that recovery has already been effected and investigation qua him is completed. He prays for grant of bail to the applicant/accused. Reply filed by the IO mentioning that the applicant/accused does not have any permanent address and there are eight previous involvements of the applicant/accused. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has opposed the instant bail application by stating that the allegations against the applicant/accused are serious in nature. Heard. Perused. Applicant/accused has been in custody in the present case since 25.05.2020 and recovery of the illicit liquor has already been effected. Further, applicant/accused has no other previous involvement of similar nature. Hence, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant/accused behind bars in the present case. Thus, let accused Hemant Kumar @ Kamal be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/ each. Application is accordingly disposed of. Proceedings be sent to the Court concerned through proper channel. Copy be also sent to concerned Jail Superintendent for intimation and necessary record and also be provided dasti to Ld. Counsel for accused. (PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 FIR NO. 54/2020 PS Sarojini Nagar U/S : 188 IPC

30.05.2020

This is an application seeking release of vehicle No. DL1T7945 on superdari to the applicant/ registered owner Krishan Kumar of the vehicle.

Present : Sh. Lalan Kumar, Ld. APP for the State through VC. Sh. S P Shukla, Ld. Counsel for applicant/registered owner of vehicle.

Reply filed by IO mentioning his 'no objection'. Heard. Perused. Instead of releasing the vehicle on superdari, I am of the considered view that the vehicle has to be released as per directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 2003 SC 638 wherein it has been held that : “68. Vehicles involved in an offence may be released to the rightful owner after preparing detailed panchnama; taking photographs of the vehicle, valuation report, and a security bond. 69. The photographs of the vehicle should be attested countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over. 70. The production of the vehicle should not be insisted upon during the trial. The panchnama and photographs along with the valuation report should suffice for the purposes of evidence. 71. Return of vehicles and permission for sale thereof should be the general norm rather than the exception. Contd....2..

:: 2 :: 72. If the vehicle is insured, the court shall issue notice to the owner and the insurance company for disposal of the vehicle. If there is no response or the owner declines to take the vehicle or informs that it has claimed insurance/released its right in the vehicle to the insurance company and the insurance company fails to take possession of the vehicle, the vehicle may be ordered to be sold in auction. 73. If a vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a third person, it may be ordered to be sold by auction.”

The view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Manjit Singh Vs. State in Crl. M.C. No. 4485/2013 dated 10.09.2014. Considering the facts and circumstances and law laid down by higher Courts, vehicle in question bearing registration number DL1T7945 be released to the registered owner on furnishing Indemnity bond of the value of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO. Panchnama shall be filed in the Court along with chargesheet. Application is accordingly disposed of. Order dasti.

(PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 FIR NO. 61/2020 PS Sarojini Nagar U/S : 188 IPC

30.05.2020

This is an application seeking release of vehicle No. DL1RZ7038 on superdari to the applicant/ registered owner Manoj Kumar of the vehicle.

Present : Sh. Lalan Kumar, Ld. APP for the State through VC. Sh. Vivek Aggarwal, Ld. LAC for applicant/registered owner of vehicle.

The view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Manjit Singh Vs. State in Crl. M.C. No. 4485/2013 dated 10.09.2014. Considering the facts and circumstances and law laid down by higher Courts, vehicle in question bearing registration number DL1RZ7038 be released to the registered owner on furnishing Indemnity bond of the value of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO. Panchnama shall be filed in the Court along with chargesheet. Application is accordingly disposed of. Order dasti.

(PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 Patil Pranjal Lahensingh Vs. Patil Komal Dhansingh

30.05.2020

Ms. Nitika Khaitan, Ld. counsel for petitioner has been contacted through telephone and she has been informed that as per the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the urgent exparte relief shall be heard by the concerned Mahila Court. Hence, the Reader of the concerned Mahila Court be intimated by the Registry immediately and soft copy of the instant petition be sent to the concerned official ID of the Court and the Reader Sh. Shashi Bhushan be contacted for the needful on his mobile number 9015119090.

(PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 FIR NO. 252/2019 PS Crime Branch U/S 420/170 IPC State Vs. Pradeep Mandal

30.05.2020

This is an application moved on behalf of applicant/accused Pradeep Mandal seeking release of jamatalashi article as per seizure memo.

Present : Sh. Lalan Kumar, Ld. APP for the State through VC. None for applicant/accused.

IO has already filed his reply stating that no article was found during personal search of applicant/accused and his personal search was nil. Perused. Since, nothing was seized during the personal search of applicant/accused, the instant application stands dismissed. Application is accordingly disposed of. Order dasti.

(PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 FIR NO 125/2020 STATE VS DURGA DEVI PRADHAN PS SPL. CELL U/S 419/420 IPC 30.05.2020

This is an application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of applicant/accused Durga Devi Pradhan seeking grant of bail. Present : Sh. Lalan Kumar, Ld. APP for the State through VC. Sh. Anoop Gupta, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused through VC.

It is stated in the instant application that the applicant/accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and apprehended on 13.05.2020. That, the applicant/accused does not know anything about the present case and her account is being used by other persons without her knowledge and investigation qua her is already complete and her custodial investigation is no more required for any purpose. It is, therefore, prayed that the applicant/accused be granted bail. Reply filed by IO opposing the instant application and it is stated that during the course of investigation, it has been revealed that the applicant/accused along with the coaccused persons have cheated many persons by the same modus operandi and her husband who is also a coaccused is evading his arrest and the case is at its initial stages and further the applicant/accused can jump the bail, if granted, and can also help her husband / coaccused to escape. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for applicant/accused submitted that the alleged cheated amount in the present case is Rs.50,00/ which the applicant/accused is willing to deposit in the present case without prejudice to merit of the present case. Reval submissions heard. File Perused. From the records, it is reveals that from the investigation conducted so far it has surfaced that the many victims have been cheated and at this stage it cannot be said that the cheated amount is only Rs.50,000/. Also, the arguments that the applicant/accused has no knowledge about her account being used is not believable. Further, coaccused person is evading arrest and investigation is still in its nascent stages. Thus, for these reasons, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant/accused. Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed. Proceedings be sent to the Court concerned through proper channel. Copy be also sent to concerned Jail Superintendent for intimation and necessary record and also be provided dasti to Ld. Counsel for accused. (PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 CC NO. 3300/2016 Bail application of Vinod Bansal S/o Shiv Narayan Bansal

30.05.2020

Present : None for complainant. Sh. Vivek Aggarwal, Ld. LAC for applicant/accused.

File perused. Perusal of file reveals that the case for which bail is sought pertains to PS Agra which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, this Court has no jurisdiction no entertain the present application. Accordingly, the application is dismissed with liberty to file afresh before competent forum. Order dasti. (PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 FIR NO. 30/2020 PS CONNAUGHT PLACE U/S 188/279/506/509/34 IPC State Vs Piyush

30.05.2020

This is an application seeking release of vehicle No. DL7CQ2213 on superdari to the registered owner Sh. Om Prakash of the vehicle.

Present : Sh. Lalan Kumar, Ld. APP for the State through VC. Sh. Pramod Tyagi, Ld. counsel for registered owner of the vehicle.

Reply filed by IO stating 'no objection'. Heard. Instead of releasing the vehicle on superdari, I am of the considered view that the vehicle has to be released as per directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 2003 SC 638 wherein it has been held that : “68. Vehicles involved in an offence may be released to the rightful owner after preparing detailed panchnama; taking photographs of the vehicle, valuation report, and a security bond. 69. The photographs of the vehicle should be attested countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over. 70. The production of the vehicle should not be insisted upon during the trial. The panchnama and photographs along with the valuation report should suffice for the purposes of evidence. 71. Return of vehicles and permission for sale thereof should be the general norm rather than the exception. Contd....2..

The view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Manjit Singh Vs. State in Crl. M.C. No. 4485/2013 dated 10.09.2014. Considering the facts and circumstances and law laid down by higher Courts, vehicle in question bearing registration number DL7CQ2213 be released to the registered owner on furnishing Indemnity bond of the value of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO. Panchnama shall be filed in the Court along with chargesheet. Application is accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be provided to applicant/registered owner through email.

(PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 DD NO. 12A Dated 19.03.2020 PS Sagar Pur U/S 184/185/207 MV Act State Vs Prince Goswami

30.05.2020

This is an application seeking release of vehicle No. DL1CAA8321 on superdari to the registered owner Ms. Rachna of the vehicle.

Present : Sh. Lalan Kumar, Ld. APP for the State through VC. None for applicant.

The view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Manjit Singh Vs. State in Crl. M.C. No. 4485/2013 dated 10.09.2014. Considering the facts and circumstances and law laid down by higher Courts, vehicle in question bearing registration number DL1CAA8321 be released to the registered owner on furnishing Indemnity bond of the value of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO. Panchnama shall be filed in the Court along with kalandara / chargesheet. Application is accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be provided to applicant/registered owner through email.

(PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 FIR NO. 0289/2020 PS SAGAR PUR U/S 188/269 IPC State Vs. RISHABH BAWEJA & ANR

30.05.2020

This is an application seeking release of vehicle No. DL10SS1820 on superdari to the registered owner Ashok Kumar Baweja of the vehicle.

Present : Sh. Lalan Kumar, Ld. APP for the State through VC. None for applicant/complainant.

The view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Manjit Singh Vs. State in Crl. M.C. No. 4485/2013 dated 10.09.2014. Considering the facts and circumstances and law laid down by higher Courts, vehicle in question bearing registration number DL10SS1820 be released to the registered owner on furnishing Indemnity bond of the value of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO. Panchnama shall be filed in the Court along with chargesheet. Application is accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be provided to applicant/registered owner through email.

(PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 FIR NO. 51/2020 PS SAROJINI NAGAR U/S 188 IPC State Vs. Chet Ram

30.05.2020

This is an application seeking release of vehicle No. HR38AA7695 on superdari to the registered owner Parminder Singh of the vehicle.

Present : Sh. Lalan Kumar, Ld. APP for the State through VC. None for applicant.

The view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Manjit Singh Vs. State in Crl. M.C. No. 4485/2013 dated 10.09.2014. Considering the facts and circumstances and law laid down by higher Courts, vehicle in question bearing registration number HR38AA7695 be released to the registered owner on furnishing Indemnity bond of the value of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO. Panchnama shall be filed in the Court along with chargesheet. Application is accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be provided to applicant/registered owner through email.

(PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 FIR NO. 0016/2020 PS PARLIAMENT STREET U/S 420/468/471/120B IPC State Vs. Vikash Kumar

30.05.2020

This is an application moved on behalf of applicant/accused Vikash Kumar seeking release of jamatalashi article as per seizure memo.

Present : Sh. Lalan Kumar, Ld. APP for the State through VC. Sh. Vivek Aggarwal, Ld. LAC for applicant/accused.

Reply filed. Taken on record. Perused. Let jamatalashi articles of applicant/accused Vikash Kumar be released to applicant/accused Vikash Kumar, as per personal search memo. Application is accordingly disposed of. Order dasti.

(PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 FIR NO. 0150/2020 PS KISHANGARH U/S 188/270 IPC State Vs. Pradyush Badapanda

30.05.2020

This is an application seeking release of vehicle No. DL3SEF3788 on superdari to the registered owner Pradyush Badapanda of the vehicle.

Present : Sh. Lalan Kumar, Ld. APP for the State through VC. None for applicant.

The view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Manjit Singh Vs. State in Crl. M.C. No. 4485/2013 dated 10.09.2014. Considering the facts and circumstances and law laid down by higher Courts, vehicle in question bearing registration number DL3SEF3788 be released to the registered owner on furnishing Indemnity bond of the value of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO. Panchnama shall be filed in the Court along with chargesheet. Application is accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be provided to applicant/registered owner through email.

(PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 FIR NO. 101/2018 PS CRIME BRACH (CH. PURI) U/S : 379/411 IPC

30.05.2020

This is an application seeking release of vehicle No. HR12T0034 on superdari to the new registered owner of the vehicle.

Present : Sh. Lalan Kumar, Ld. APP for the State through VC. Sh. Pramod Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for applicant/new registered owner of vehicle.

Reply filed by IO mentioning his 'no objection'. It is further stated that the registered owner Sh. Parmender Singh has already sold the vehicle to Sh. Yashpal Chaudhary. Heard. Perused. Instead of releasing the vehicle on superdari, I am of the considered view that the vehicle has to be released as per directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 2003 SC 638 wherein it has been held that : “68. Vehicles involved in an offence may be released to the rightful owner after preparing detailed panchnama; taking photographs of the vehicle, valuation report, and a security bond. 69. The photographs of the vehicle should be attested countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over. 70. The production of the vehicle should not be insisted upon during the trial. The panchnama and photographs along with the valuation report should suffice for the purposes of evidence. 71. Return of vehicles and permission for sale thereof should be the general norm rather than the exception. Contd....2..

The view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Manjit Singh Vs. State in Crl. M.C. No. 4485/2013 dated 10.09.2014. Considering the facts and circumstances and law laid down by higher Courts, vehicle in question bearing registration number HR12T0034 be released to the applicant / new registered owner on furnishing Indemnity bond of the value of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO. Panchnama shall be filed in the Court along with chargesheet. Application is accordingly disposed of. Order dasti.

(PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 FIR NO. 259/2020 PS KISHANGARH U/S 188/279/336 IPC State Vs. Faizal Parvez

30.05.2020

This is an application seeking release of vehicle No. DL12CK0489 on superdari to the registered owner Faizal Parvez of the vehicle.

Present : Sh. Lalan Kumar, Ld. APP for the State through VC. None for applicant.

The view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Manjit Singh Vs. State in Crl. M.C. No. 4485/2013 dated 10.09.2014. Considering the facts and circumstances and law laid down by higher Courts, vehicle in question bearing registration number DL12CK0489 be released to the registered owner on furnishing Indemnity bond of the value of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO. Panchnama shall be filed in the Court along with chargesheet. Application is accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be provided to applicant/registered owner through email.

(PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020

FIR NO. 252/2020 PS DELHI CANTT. U/S 279/427 IPC State Vs. Umesh Chander

30.05.2020

This is an application seeking release of vehicle No. HR26CS4085 on superdari to the registered owner Sh. Umesh Chander of the vehicle.

Present : Sh. Lalan Kumar, Ld. APP for the State through VC. None for applicant.

The view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Manjit Singh Vs. State in Crl. M.C. No. 4485/2013 dated 10.09.2014. Considering the facts and circumstances and law laid down by higher Courts, vehicle in question bearing registration number HR26CS4085 be released to the registered owner on furnishing Indemnity bond of the value of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO. Panchnama shall be filed in the Court along with chargesheet. Application is accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be provided to applicant/registered owner through email.

(PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 EFIR NO. 006864/2020 PS MANDIR MARG U/S 379 IPC

30.05.2020

This is an application seeking release of vehicle No. DL3SEH0954 on superdari to the registered owner Aakash Chauhan of the vehicle.

Present : Sh. Lalan Kumar, Ld. APP for the State through VC. None for applicant.

The view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Manjit Singh Vs. State in Crl. M.C. No. 4485/2013 dated 10.09.2014. Considering the facts and circumstances and law laid down by higher Courts, vehicle in question bearing registration number DL3SEH0954 be released to the registered owner on furnishing Indemnity bond of the value of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO. Panchnama shall be filed in the Court along with chargesheet. Application is accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be provided to applicant/registered owner through email.

(PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 FIR NO. 182/2020 PS SAGAR PUR STATE VS VISHAL U/S 188/269 IPC

30.05.2020

This is an application seeking release of laptop on superdari to Vishal Saxena, applicant / accused / owner of the laptop.

Present : Sh. Lalan Kumar, Ld. APP for the State through VC. Sh. Vivek Aggarwal, Ld. LAC for applicant/accused Vishal Saxena.

Heard. File Perused. As per reply filed by IO, the laptop in question is the case property of the present case. Since the laptop in question is the case property of the present case and is required for trial, the instant application stands dismissed. Application is accordingly disposed of. Order dasti.

(PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 FIR NO 08/2020 PS Connaught Place State Vs Purooshottam Mahraj & Anr. U/S 420/511/467/468/471/120B IPC

30.05.2020

Fresh chargesheet filed.

Present: None for the State. IO / SI Satish Kumar in person. Accused Purooshottam Mahraj stated to be on Court bail. Accused Lalit Kashyap stated to be in JC.

Let chargesheet be kept for consideration on 30.06.2020. IO to directed to file additional copies of chargesheet for accused persons.

(PREETI PAREWA) DMM/PHC/ND/30.05.2020 FIR No. 7503/2020 State vs Ramesh Chander Sharma u/s 379/411 IPC P.S. Naraina

This is an application moved on behalfof applicant/accused Ramesh Chander Sharma.

Present: Ld. APP for the State through VC. Sh. R.A. Worso Zimik, Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused through VC.

It is submitted in the application that applicant/accused was apprehended by Assam Police wrongfully on 04.03.2020 and thereafter produced before the concerned court at Delhi on

14.03.2020, after grant of transit remand. During the course of police remand, the applicant/accused has fully cooperated in the investigation and there is no chance ot destruction of evidence in any manner. That the applicant/accused has no past criminal record/antecedents.

On the other hand reply opposing the said application has been filed, stating that during interrogation, the accused disclosed that he is associated with a gang of auto lifters and works on the direction of his bosses, who direct him to come to Delhi for taking stolen vehicles from road and in lieu of the same he is paid Rs.20,000/- per vehicle. Further it is stated that during the PC remand, the team along with applicant/accused has gone to Imphal, Manipur, however due to spread of

Corona pandemic, no investigation could be conducted as team along with applicant/accused got struck in Deena Nagar and returned to Delhi. Further, it is submitted that stolen case property has been recovered from his possession and charge sheet of the case has been filed.

Submissions heard and considered.

Considering the fact that chargesheet of the present case has already been filed and no evidence against the applicant/accused could be collected regarding him being a member of gang of auto-lifters till date. Further no previous involvement of the applicant/accused has been reported and the case property has already been recovered. Thus, in these circumstances, this court deems it appropriate to enlarge the applicant/accused on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/-each.

Application is accordingly disposed off. (PREETI PAREWA) DUTY MM/ PHC/ND 30.05.2020 Customs Vs. Mohd. Arshi u/s 132/135 of the Customs Act 1962

Present: None for the department. None for applicant/claimant.

The counsel for applicant/accused has been telephonically informed that she does not wish to address any oral arguments.

Reply has been filed by the department stating that mobile phone and passport are required for the purposes of investigation and the department has no objection for release of other articles taken into possession during personal search.

Perused.

In view of the reply, let the articles of Jamatlashi, except the mobile phone and passport, which are required for the purposes of investigation be released to the applicant/rightful claimant, as per rules forthwith.

Copy of order be provided dasti.

(PREETI PAREWA) DUTY MM/ PHC/ND 30.05.2020 Rakesh Tanwar Vs. State of Delhi PS Naraina Vihar (Application u/s 156 (3) CrPC)

On the basis of complaint number 10 A dated 21.05.2020, PS Naraina Vihar.

30.05.2020.

Present : Sh. Pankaj Singh and Sh. Deepak Juneja, ld. counsels for the applicant/complainant.

Brief facts as stated in the application are that the victim, aged about 24 years, worked for the applicant since last one and a half years as home care assistant and also sometimes collected money from the clients to giving to the applicant and that around 20th March 2020, the victim

Collected about 83,000/- rupees from a client to deliver to the applicant. The next day the victim did not report for work and the applicant called her many times but her phone was switched off so he went to her house in Naraina Village and found it locked. That, he called her many times over the next few days but her phone was switched off. That the applicant inquired from his other employees regarding her whereabouts and one of them named Rohini informed him that the victim's husband

(Pradeep Singh), Father-in-law (Surender) and Brother-in-law (Pankaj) had come from village and were beating her badly since days and forcing the victim to return with them to the village against her wishes. Later, the applicant was told by Rohini that Aarti secretly managed to call her and told her that her husband Pradeep Singh saw the office money in the bag, drugged her and took her and her son while she was unconscious to his friend Bablu's house in Budaun, Uttar Pradesh and that she is being held against her wishes and being tortured and was begging for help. That the applicant told Rohini to tell the victim to call him and after many days when the victim called the applicant from mobile number 901276385, she told him the same things and that she is held captive in

Bablu's house in Bihari Gotiya Village, PS Binawar, Dist. Budaun, UP because the accused wanted to hide her. She also told the applicant that they put a knife on her son's throat. She further told the applicant that Surender, Pankaj and Bablu have tried to rape her and upon resisting she was beaten till she fell unconscious. She further told the applicant that Pradeep has the office money and intends to buy lands with it. She further said that Pradeep Singh is a drug addict and wants her to have sex with others to earn money for them. She also said that Bablu and his mother have threatened the villagers not to help her and she was really scared for her and her sons life and repeatedly begged the applicant for help to be rescued or she will be killed by them. On 11th May, the applicant informed UP Police on its Twitter handle @112UttarPradesh about the situation and a police team went to the house where the victim is held captive and searched but could not find her.

After some days, the applicant received a call from the victim and said that the accused was informed about the police visit by the village pradhaan and Pradeep, Surender, Pankaj and Bablu's mother immediately beat and hid her in a tank (Hodi) and threatened to kill her son if she made any noise. She further said she was severely beaten after the police left and inquired about how the police came looking for her and now the accused suspect that she has somehow managed to inform somebody and so are now planning to kill and bury her soon. A screenshot of the tweet is enclosed with complaint as annexure 2.

It is stated that despite disclosure of commission of cognizable offence in the complaint, FIR has not been registered in the present case.

Action taken report has been called from the concerned SHO, wherein it is stated that inquiry was conducted in the neighbourhood of the residence of the victim at Naraina Village and it was stated that the victim was residing at that address along with his husband, father-in-law and children. No eye witness claimed to have seen any time of forceful abduction. No specific statement could be obtained as H. No.398, Naraina Village has a COVID-19 positive case and is under quarantine. A telephonic conversation was also made with the victim over mobile number

9012763835 wherein she stated that she along with her husband, father-in-law and children went to their relative Bablu's place at village : Bihari Gotiya, Distt. Badaun around 15th March 2020 i.e. before lockdown. But now due to lockdown they are unable to come to Delhi. She also stated that she has a fight with her husband over this issue and she also called the local police but due to intervention of family members and other relatives, the matter was settled. She did not allege anything regarding rape or abduction or illegal confinement. She also stated that they will come to

Delhi once the lockdown is over. No cause of action arises in the jurisdiction of Delhi as it is only alleged that she was abducted from Delhi. But being they were husband and wife, they were in relation and not in a hostile relation as they were living together, hence no case of abduction arises against the husband.

I have heard ld. counsels for the applicant/complainant and also gone through the records.

The complaint on the applicant/complainant which is supported with an affidavit prima-facie discloses commission of cognizable offences of serious nature. As per the report of IO, the case be transferred to UP as the alleged victim is present in UP, but as per complainant, victim was earlier residing in Naraina Vihar from where she was abducted and the applicant/complainant and another lady employee namely Rohini received telephonic call from the victim informing them that she was subjected to torture and there was apprehension of commission of rape on her. Further statement of independent witnesses from the locality where the victim was residing has also been not been recorded by the IO and it is stated that the same could not be recorded due to Pandemic of

COVID-19 and also mere telephonic call to the victim during the course of inquiry does not suffice as it cannot be ascertained whether the said statement made by the victim was without any force or fear or undue coercion. The graveness of the alleged offences require that the statement of the victim be recorded in person ensuring that same is being made voluntarily.

Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the entire facts and circumstances of present case requires registration of FIR under the relevant provisions of law and thus, this Court directs that SHO PS

Naraina Vihar to register the FIR under the relevant provisions of law immediately and investigate the matter forthwith as per law.

Compliance report of the same be filed on 02.06.2020.

Copy of order be sent to the concerned SHO through proper channel.

(PREETI PAREWA) DUTY MM/ PHC/ND 30.05.2020 FIR No. 659/19 State vs Nitinn Sharma u/s 376/354B/323/506/509/312/201 IPC P.S. Vasant Kunj (South)

This is an application moved for summoning the records from the hotels and Vistara Airlines filed on behalf of applicant/accused Nitinn Sharma.

Present: Ld. APP for the State through VC. Sh. Vikas Arora, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused through VC.

Ld. counsel submits that pursuant to the order dated 01.05.2020, passed by ld. Duty MM, copy of the charge sheet has been supplied to him and the matter is still at the stage of pre- cognizance.

However, reply has not been filed by the IO. It is already 3.00pm.

It is hereby directed that concerned SHO/IO to positively file reply on 03.06.2020 in terms of previous order dated 26.05.2020. Copy of order dated 26.05.2020 and today's order be supplied to the concerned SHO through the Counsel for applicant to ensure that report is positively filed on the next date of hearing i.e. 03.06.2020.

Copy of order be provided dasti.

(PREETI PAREWA) DUTY MM/ PHC/ND 30.05.2020 FIR No. 659/19 State vs Nitinn Sharma u/s 376/354B/323/506/509/312/201 IPC P.S. Vasant Kunj (South)

This is an application moved for summoning the CDR records pertaining to certain phone numbers filed on behalf of applicant/accused Nitinn Sharma.

Present: Ld. APP for the State through VC. Sh. Vikas Arora, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused through VC.

Ld. counsel submits that pursuant to the order dated 01.05.2020, passed by ld. Duty MM, copy of the charge sheet has been supplied to him and the matter is still at the stage of pre- cognizance.

However, reply has not been filed by the IO. It is already 3.00pm.

Copy of order be provided dasti.

(PREETI PAREWA) DUTY MM/ PHC/ND 30.05.2020 FIR No. 33/2018 State vs Rohit u/s 356/379/411/34 IPC P.S. Inderpuri

This is an application moved on behalf of applicant/accused seeking issuance of intimation to the Jail Superintendent that the applicant/accused is on bail in the aforesaid FIR.

Present: Ld. APP for the State through VC. Sh. Akshat Sharma, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused.

Attested copy has been filed by ld. counsel wherein the applicant/accused has been reported to be on bail. Further the jail superintendent has also been filed a report stating that the applicant/accused is on bail in the abovesaid FIR. In view of the same, the jail superintendent is directed to release the applicant/accused forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Application is accordingly disposed off.

Copy of order be provided dasti. (PREETI PAREWA) DUTY MM/ PHC/ND 30.05.2020 FIR No. 33/2018 State vs Rohit u/s 356/379/411/34 IPC P.S. Inderpuri

This is an application moved on behalf of applicant/accused seeking grant of bail.

Present: Ld. APP for the State through VC. Sh. Akshat Sharma, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused.

Report filed already on record, wherein the applicant/accused has been reported to be on bail. Further the jail superintendent has also been filed a report stating that the applicant/accused is on bail in the abovesaid FIR.

In view of the same, the present bail application is infructuous and stands disposed off.

Copy of order be provided dasti. (PREETI PAREWA) DUTY MM/ PHC/ND 30.05.2020 FIR No. 235/2019 State vs Sunil Kumar Meena & Ors. (Applicant Sunil Kumar Meena) u/s 186/353/307/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act P.S. Vasant Kunj North

Present: Ld. APP for the State through VC. Sh. A. K. Mishra, Ld. counsel for applicant through VC.

Reply to the instant application has not been filed by the concerned SHO/IO despite directions.

Let reply to the same be filed called through concerned SHO/IO for 04.06.2020.

(PREETI PAREWA) DUTY MM/ PHC/ND 30.05.2020 FIR No. 235/2019 State vs Sunil Kumar Meena & Ors. (Applicant Satender) u/s 186/353/307/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act P.S. Vasant Kunj North

Present: Ld. APP for the State through VC. None for applicant/claimant.

Reply to the instant application has not been filed by the concerned SHO/IO despite directions.

Heard.

Let the articles of Jamatlashi, if any, be released as per seizure memo to the applicant/rightful claimant, as per rules.

Copy of order be provided dasti.

(PREETI PAREWA) DUTY MM/ PHC/ND 30.05.2020 FIR No. 235/2019 State vs Sunil Kumar Meena & Ors. (Applicant Sunil Kumar Meena) u/s 186/353/307/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act P.S. Vasant Kunj North

Present: Ld. APP for the State through VC. None for applicant/claimant.

Reply to the instant application has not been filed by the concerned SHO/IO despite directions.

Heard.

Let the articles of Jamatlashi, if any, be released as per seizure memo to the applicant/rightful claimant, as per rules.

Copy of order be provided dasti.

(PREETI PAREWA) DUTY MM/ PHC/ND 30.05.2020 FIR No. 284/2019 State vs Sanju@Darinda@Mahakal u/s 379/411 IPC P.S. Sarojini Nagar

Present: Ld. APP for the State through VC. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused through VC.

Reply to the instant application has not been filed.

Let reply to the same be filed called through concerned SHO/IO for 01.06.2020.

(PREETI PAREWA) DUTY MM/ PHC/ND 30.05.2020