None. a Letter Dt. 27-06-2020 Has Been Received from the Dy

CC No. 2905-19 Shiv Automobiles Vs. Kashif U/s 138 N.I. Act PS Shandara

27-06-2020 Present: None. A letter dt. 27-06-2020 has been received from the Dy. Superintendent, Central Jail No. 12, Mandoli Jail in the present matter wherein it has been stated that accused is facing trial before this Court and require to produce on 08-07-20 and report has been sought regarding confirmation on bail in respect of accused. Report perused. Vide order dt. 26-06-2020 Production warrants of the accused Kashif S/o Sh. Khurshidui Hasan were cancelled and accused was directed to furnish bail bonds for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- after his release. Jail Superintendent concerned is directed to release the accused Kashif S/o Sh. Khurshidul Hasan, if he is not required in any other case. After release, the accused shall furnish the bail bonds before the court.

Copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail No. 12, Mandoli Jail for intimation and compliance.

(Fa MM-0 /S elhi 27-06- 020 FIR No. 153/20 PS Jafrabad

Fresh chargesheet has been filed. Same be checked & registered.

27-06-2020 Present: Ld. APP for State. All the four accused are stated to be in JC. SI Arvind on behalf of the 10. It has been mentioned in the chargesheet that after obtaining FSL report, supplementary chargesheet will be filed. Accordingly 10 is directed to do the needful. Put up for consideration on 18-07-2020.

(Fa ad din) MM-04/ HD/Delhi 27-06-2020 p

State Vs. Raj Kamal @ Raj Kumar FIR No. 78/2020 PS Jyoti Nagar

ti imprisonment for life. A balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police to investigate the case. It has to dovetail two conflicting demands, namely on the one hand the requirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards on being exposed to the misadventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence viz. the presumption of innocence of an accused till he found guilty. The law of bail like any other branch of law, has its own philosphy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime and presumption of innocence infavour of the alleged criminal. An accused is not detained in custody with the object of punishing him on the assumption of his guilt. Further, in terms of the guidelines as laid down in Hasan Aziz Irani @ Jafrey Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Bail Application No. 1822 of 2019, it has been mentioned that antecedents of accused by itself would not he a ground to reject his application for bail. Thus considering the observations made in the aforesaid judgments as well the fact that the chargesheet has already been stated to be filed against the accused on 23-06-2020, accused Raj Kama! @ Raj Kumar is hereby admitted on bail on furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and one local surety of like amount on the following conditions. 1. Accused shall not contact the complainant, threaten the witnesses and hamper the investigation. 2. Accused shall attend the court on each and every date of hearing. 3. Accused shall mark his presence before the concerned SHO on the last day of every month and shall give his contact details to the concerned SHO/10. With these observations, the bail application stands disposed off. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for intimation and necessary action and be given dasti to Ld. Counsel for the accused as requested as well as to the 10.

(Fah ddin) MM-0 / HD/Delhi 27-06-2020 C-/

State Vs. Gaurav FIR No. 78/2020 PS Jyoti Nagar

27-06-2020 Present: Ld. APP for State. Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant 10 in person. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the present bail application U/s 437 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the accused Gauray. In the bail application, it has been submitted that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. Nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused. Investigation has been completed. Chargesheet has been filed. Accused is no more required for further investigation in the present case and accused is ready to abide by any condition imposed by the court for grant of bail. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has strongly opposed the bail application moved on behalf of the accused on the ground that the allegations against the accused are serious in nature. Accused is involved in 18 other cases and involved in Anti National Activities. Accused may jump the bail if released on bail and may harass the witnesses/complainant and hamper the investigation, if released at this stage. Perusal of the reply filed by the 10 it reveals that present FIR was lodged U/s 147/148/149/323 IPC on the complaint of the complainant Rajveer Singh and it has been submitted that on 26-02-2020, an MLC information was received from GTB Hospital vide DD No. 18A regarding one person namely Rajveer Singh who was admitted in the GTB Hospital after receiving injuries by a Mob on 25-2-2020 near shiv Mandir, Delhi. 10 visited the hospital and received the MLC wherein it was mentioned "Assault by Mob at around 5.00 p.m. on 25- 02-2020". Hence, the present FIR was registered U/s 147/148/149/323 IPC, PS Jyoti Nagar. The complainant alleged that on 25-02-2020 some unknown persons attacked him and some object was hit on his face near Shiv Mandir. On the statement of one public witness, the present accused Gaurav including other four accused persons were arrested at Mandoli Jail as per the report of the 10. The public witness identified the accused and the accused is visible in CCTV Footage. MLC result is awaited. However, the present chargesheet has been filed U/s 147/148/149/323 I PC. Submission heard. Record perused. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sanjay Chandra and Ors. Vs. Central bureau of Investigation dated 23-11-2011 wherein the following observations have been made: The basic rule may perhaps be teresly put as bail, no jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhausitve but only illustrative. In other non-bailable cases the Court will exercise its judicial discretions in favour of granting bail subject to subsection (3) of Section 437 Cr.P.C. if it deems necessary to act under it. Unless exceptional circumstances are brought to the notice of the Court which may defeat proper investigation and fair trial, the Court will not decline to grant bail to a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. A balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police to investigate the case. It has to dovetail two conflicting demands, namely on the one hand the requirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards on being exposed to the misadventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence viz. the presumption of innocence of an accused till he found guilty. The law of bail like any other branch of law, has its own philosphy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime and presumption of innocence infavour of the alleged criminal. An accused is not detained in custody with the object of punishing him on the assumption of his guilt. Further, in terms of the guidelines as laid down in Hasan Aziz Irani Jafrey Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Bail Application No. 1822 of 2019, it has been mentioned that antecedents of accused by itself would not be a ground to reject his application for bail. Thus considering the observations made in the aforesaid judgments as well the fact that the chargesheet has already been stated to be filed against the accused on 23-06-2020, accused Gaurav is hereby admitted on bail on furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and one local surety of like amount on the following conditions. 1. Accused shall not contact the complainant, threaten the witnesses and hamper the investigation. 2. Accused shall attend the court on each and every date of hearing. 3. Accused shall mark his presence before the concerned SHO on the last day of every month and shall give his contact details to the concerned SHO/IO. With these observations, the bail application stands disposed off. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for intimation and necessary action and be given dasti to Ld. Counsel j for the accused as requested as well as to the 10.

(Fahad MM-04 HD/Delhi 27-06- S20 State Vs. Gaurav S/o Sh. Mahesh FIR No. 89/2020 PS Jyoti Nagar

interrogation, the present accused including other accused persons were

arrested at Mandoli Jail. It has been submitted that the eye witness identified

the accused and the accused is also visible in CCTV Footage recovered and

file alongwith the case record. Accused is also involved in 18 other cases.

Hence, the bail application is strongly opposed. It may be noted that chargesheet

has already been filed before the court on 23-06-2020. Accused stated to be

in JC since 09-03-2020.

Submission heard. Record perused.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sanjay Chandra and Ors. Vs.

Central bureau of Investigation dated 23-11-2011 wherein the following

observations have been made:

The basic rule may perhaps be teresly put as bail, no jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhausitve but only illustrative. In other non-bailable cases the Court will exercise its judicial discretions in favour of granting bail subject to subsection (3) of Section 437 Cr.P.C. if it deems necessary to act under it. Unless exceptional circumstances are brought to the notice of the Court which may defeat proper investigation and fair trial, the Court will not decline to grant bail to a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. A balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police to investigate the case. It has to dovetail two conflicting demands, namely on the one hand the requirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards on being exposed to the misadventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence viz. the presumption of innocence of an accused till he found guilty. The law of bail like any other branch of law, has its own philosphy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime and presumption of innocence infavour of the alleged criminal. An accused is not detained in custody with the object of punishing him on the assumption of his guilt. Further, in terms of the guidelines as laid down in Hasan Aziz Irani Jafrey Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Bail Application No. 1822 of 2019, it has been mentioned that antecedents of accused by itself would not be a ground to reject his application for bail.

Thus considering the observations made in the aforesaid judgments as well the fact that the chargesheet has already been stated to be filed against the accused on 23-06-2020. Accused is involved in the offence U/s 454 /380 which provides a punishment for a maximum period of 7 years. Hence, no purpose would be served by keeping the accused behind the bars during the pending investigation/trial. Accordingly, accused Gaurav is hereby admitted on bail on furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and one local surety of like amount on the following conditions. 1. Accused shall not contact the complainant, threaten the witnesses and hamper the investigation. 2. Accused shall attend the court on each and every date of hearing. 3. Accused shall mark his presence before the concerned SHO on the last day of every month and shall give his contact details to the concerned SHO/10. With these observations, the bail application stands disposed off. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for intimation and necessary action and be given dasti to Ld. Counsel for the accused as requested as well as to the 10.

(Fah dd. i) MM- 1114/ Hg /Delhi 27-06 2 2 177

State Vs. Raj Kamal @ Raj Kumar FIR No. 89/2020 PS Jyoti Nagar

persons were arrested at Mandoli Jail. It has been submitted that the eye

witness identified the accused and the accused is also visible in CCTV Footage

recovered and file alongwith the case record. Accused is also involved in

other cases. Hence, the bail application is strongly opposed. It may be noted

that chargesheet has already been filed before the court on 23-06-2020.

Accused stated to be in JC since 09-03-2020.

Submission heard. Record perused. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sanjay Chandra and Ors. Vs.

Central bureau of Investigation dated 23-11-2011 wherein the following observations have been made:

The basic rule may perhaps be teresly put as bail, no jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhausitve but only illustrative. In other non-bailable cases the Court will exercise its judicial discretions in favour of granting bail subject to subsection (3) of Section 437 Cr.P.C. if it deems necessary to act under it. Unless exceptional circumstances are brought to the notice of the Court which may defeat proper investigation and fair trial, the Court will not decline to grant bail to a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. A balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police to investigate the case. It has to dovetail two conflicting demands, namely on the one hand the requirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards on being exposed to the misadventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence viz. the presumption of innocence of an accused till he found guilty. The law of bail like any other branch of law, has its own philosphy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime and presumption of innocence infavour of the alleged criminal. An accused is not detained in custody with the object of punishing him on the assumption of his guilt. Further, in terms of the guidelines as laid down in Hasan Aziz Irani @ Jafrey Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Bail Application No. 1822 of

2019, it has been mentioned that antecedents of accused by itself would not be a ground to reject his application for bail.

454 /380 which provides a punishment for a maximum period of 7 years.

Hence, no purpose would be served by keeping the accused behind the bars during the pending investigation/trial. Accordingly, accused Raj Kamal

Raj Kumar is hereby admitted on bail on furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs.

20,000/- and one local surety of like amount on the following conditions.

1. Accused shall not contact the complainant, threaten the witnesses and hamper the investigation.

2. Accused shall attend the court on each and every date of hearing •

3. Accused shall mark his presence before the concerned SHO on the last day of every month and shall give his contact details to the concerned SHO/10. With these observations, the bail application stands disposed off. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for intimation and necessary action and be given dasti to Ld. Counsel for the accused as requested as well as to the 10.

(Fah in) MM-04/ D/Delhi 27-06-2 20