Bail Application State Vs. Sonu FIR No.53/2018 PS: Sarojini Nagar 17.11.2020 the Proceedings in This Case Are Being Done Through

Bail Application State vs. Sonu FIR no.53/2018 PS: Sarojini Nagar

17.11.2020 The proceedings in this case are being done through video conferencing and the undersigned has conducted the proceedings through video conferencing from my residence.

Present : Sh. T.A. Siddiqui, Counsel for applicant/accused Sonu, through VC. Sh. Dharam Chand, Addl. PP for State, through VC. SI Manish, through VC.

Present is an application for grant of bail filed on behalf of applicant/accused Sonu. It is submitted in the present bail application that nothing was recovered from the accused and the complainant has not identified the accused in TIP proceedings. Charge was framed on 06.02.2019 and till date only six witnesses have been examined. The applicant/accused has been falsely implicated after being picked up from his house. There is no possibility of the functioning of the court in a regular manner due to COVID-19 pandemic and it will take more time to conclude the evidence. He has been in custody for about 3½ years which is punishment enough and his conduct has been satisfactory in jail. He has his minor children, wife and old aged parents to take care. The marriage of his younger brother is to be solemnized on 20.11.2020 and his parents and wife are willing to join the marriage of his brother. The bail application has been filed by the counsel on the instructions of the father of the applicant/accused. The present application is for grant of regular bail. In the reply to the bail application, it is submitted that the applicant/accused has multiple involvements and as many as nine previous involvements are reflecting in the reply. It is submitted that the offence alleged is serious and if released, the accused may jump the bail. It is further submitted that at the time of his arrest, the accused had given an address, which on being visited was not found to be correct and jhuggi was found lying decrepit at the said address. The parents of the accused and his wife are living in Itawa, U.P. There is no permanent address of the applicant in Delhi. It is further submitted that pursuant to the arrest of the accused, recovery of stolen case property was affected. I have heard rival submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused and Ld. Addl. PP for State. It has been contended by Ld. Addl. PP that out of stolen amount of Rs.48,000/-, some cash was recovered from the accused Sonu and robbed wrist watch was recovered from his associate Vikram. He has further contended that the complainant could not identify them at the time of judicial TIP proceedings as they were staring at him and his statement to this effect has been recorded by the IO. He however, has submitted that the complainant when appeared as PW4 has not identified the accused in the court as the person who had robbed him. The cash allegedly recovered from this accused has also not been identified in any manner to be the same currency which was robbed from the complainant. I have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the testimony of the complainant who had appeared as PW4. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the period of custody of applicant/accused Sonu and the fact that he has not been identified by the complainant as one of the robbers, the application for grant of bail is allowed. The applicant/accused is admitted to bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of this court. Bail is granted subject to the condition that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court and shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. Copy of the order be sent to the concerned jail authorities for his information. Order be uploaded on the official website of Delhi District Court.

(Parveen Singh) ASJ-03/NDD/PHC/New Delhi 17.11.2020 (Through VC)

It is certified that Video Conferencing was held in an uninterrupted manner and during the proceedings, no objections were raised by either of the parties regarding the connectivity i.e. audio or visual quality.

Ahlmad/17.11.2020 Bail Application State vs. Shalim @ Saleem FIR No.121/2019 PS: Barakhamba Road

17.11.2020 The proceedings in this case are being done through video conferencing and the undersigned has conducted the proceedings through video conferencing from my residence.

Present : Sh. M.M. Khan, Counsel for applicant/accused Shalim @ Saleem, through VC. Sh. Dharam Chand, Addl. PP for State, through VC.

Present is a bail application filed on behalf of applicant/accused Shalim @ Saleem seeking interim bail for a period of two months on the ground of marriage of his sister. It is submitted that the sister of the accused is to be married on 24.11.2020. IO has filed his verification report and has verified that the marriage of the sister of the applicant/accused is to take place on 24.11.2020. I have considered the rival submissions. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the applicant/accused is granted interim bail for a period of ten days from 19.11.2020 on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of this court. Bail is granted subject to the condition that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court and shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. Applicant shall surrender before the concerned jail authorities on 29.11.2020. Copy of the order be sent to the concerned jail authorities for his information. Order be uploaded on the official website of Delhi District Court.

(Parveen Singh) ASJ-03/NDD/PHC/New Delhi 17.11.2020 (Through VC)

Ahlmad/17.11.2020 Bail Application State vs. Om Dutt Mishra FIR No.1029/2015 PS: Vasant Kunj (North)

17.11.2020 The proceedings in this case are being done through video conferencing and the undersigned has conducted the proceedings through video conferencing from my residence.

Present : Sh. Suresh Sisodia, Counsel for applicant/accused Om Dutt Mishra, through VC. Sh. Dharam Chand, Addl. PP for State, through VC.

Present is a bail application filed on behalf of applicant/accused Om Dutt Mishra seeking interim bail for a period of two months on the ground of marriage of his sister. It is submitted that the sister of the accused is to be married on 08.12.2020 (through in the application, it is stated to be scheduled for 08.10.2020 which appears to be a typographical error). IO has filed his verification report and has verified that the marriage of the sister of the applicant/accused is to take place on 08.12.2020. I have considered the rival submissions. Ld. Addl. PP has submitted that the family members of the applicant/accused are well capable for making the arrangement and for rituals of the sister of the applicant, two brothers are already there in the family and that the present application may be dismissed. However, Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused has contended that earlier also the accused had been granted interim bail and had not misused it. He has prayed for grant of interim bail to the accused. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the applicant/accused is granted interim bail for a period of ten days from 05.12.2020 on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of this court. Bail is granted subject to the condition that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court and shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. Applicant shall surrender before the concerned jail authorities on 15.12.2020. Copy of the order be sent to the concerned jail authorities for his information. Order be uploaded on the official website of Delhi District Court.

(Parveen Singh) ASJ-03/NDD/PHC/New Delhi 17.11.2020 (Through VC)

Ahlmad/17.11.2020 Bail Application State vs. Insaf @ Juber FIR No.207/2018 PS: Delhi Cantt. 17.11.2020 The proceedings in this case are being done through video conferencing and the undersigned has conducted the proceedings through video conferencing from my residence.

Present : Sh. Rajesh Singh, Counsel for applicant/accused Insaf @ Juber, through VC. Sh. Dharam Chand, Addl. PP for State, through VC.

Present is an application for grant of extension of interim bail filed on behalf of applicant/accused Insaf @ Juber. Earlier, Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused had submitted that the accused was not in his contact and might have surrendered before the jail authorities. A report was called from the jail authorities, according to which the accused has not surrendered before the jail authorities. However, Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that today in the morning, the accused has been arrested in some other case, though he does not have complete particulars. In these circumstances, the application has become infructuous. The same is accordingly dismissed.

(Parveen Singh) ASJ-03/NDD/PHC/New Delhi 17.11.2020 (Through VC) It is certified that Video Conferencing was held in an uninterrupted manner and during the proceedings, no objections were raised by either of the parties regarding the connectivity i.e. audio or visual quality.

Ahlmad/17.11.2020 Bail Bond in State vs. Sonu FIR no.53/2018 PS: Sarojini Nagar

17.11.2020 at 3.15 p.m.

The proceedings in this case are being done through video conferencing and the undersigned has conducted the proceedings through video conferencing from my residence.

Present : Ms. Shirin Raza, Counsel for accused Sonu alongwith surety Sh. Radha Krishan.

File taken up again on submission of bail bond with enclosures on behalf of accused Sonu pursuant to bail order dated 17.11.2020 passed by this court. Electronic copy of the bail bond along with enclosures has been sent to me through whatsapp. I have perused the same. In these circumstances, the bail bond is accepted. Release warrants of the accused be issued. Put up on the date already fixed i.e. 19.12.2020 for the purpose fixed.

(Parveen Singh) ASJ-03/NDD/PHC/New Delhi 17.11.2020 (Through VC) State vs. Jyoti Prakash @ Jyoti @ Baba & Ors. FIR No.163/2019 U/s 3 & 4 MCOC Act PS: Special Cell, New Delhi 17.11.2020 Present : Sh. Dharam Chand, Addl. PP for State, through VC.

An application u/s 21(2)(b) of the MCOC Act seeking extension of limitation period of filing of charge-sheet to 180 days in case FIR no.163/2019, PS Special Cell, New Delhi, in respect of accused Jyoti Prakash @ Jyoti @ Baba s/o Sh. Suraj Bhan, Amit Gulia s/o Sh. Jitender,, Krishan Kumar @ Ankush @ Bhalu s/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad, Sachin Chhikara s/o Sh. Naresh, Pardeep @ Fauji s/o Sh. Bijender, Vikas @ Nakul @ PK s/o Sh. Bijender Singh and Anil Sharma @ Podi s/o Sh. Om Prakash, has been moved. Issue notice of this application to the accused persons through concerned jail authorities as well as Sh. B.S. Randhawa, Ld. LAC, through E-mail, for 19.11.2020. Order be uploaded on the website of Delhi District Court.

(Parveen Singh) ASJ-03/NDD/PHC/New Delhi 17.11.2020 It is certified that Video Conferencing was held in an uninterrupted manner and during the proceedings, no objections were raised by either of the parties regarding the connectivity i.e. audio or visual quality.

Ahlmad/17.11.2020 Application in State vs. Hakim & Ors. FIR no.130/2014 PS: Govind Nagar, Mathura, U.P. 17.11.2020 The proceedings in this case are being done through video conferencing and the undersigned has conducted the proceedings through video conferencing from my residence.

Present : Sh. Archit Kaushik, Counsel for applicant Sh. Umesh Chaudhary s/o Sh. Hakim Singh, through VC. Sh. Dharam Chand, Addl. PP for State, through VC.

This is an application seeking clarification on case numbers, crime numbers, ST numbers & SC number allotted and arising out of above mentined FIR number & SC number on behalf of applicant Umesh Chaudhary s/o Sh. Hakim Singh. TCR not received. Ahlmad has reported that on being issued the Robkar for the case file, it is informed that the case file is in the Hon'ble High Court. After making submissions for some time on the application, Ld. Counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the present application. In view of the above submission of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, the application at hand, is dismissed as withdrawn.

Ahlmad/17.11.2020 FIR No. 64/2018 State Vs. Rajender & Ors. PS Special Cell

17.11.2020 Matter heard through video conferencing. Present: Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State through VC. Ms. Archana Sharma, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused Rajender through VC.

Ld. Counsel for accused submitted that this is second application for interim bail on the ground that wife of the accused got slipped in the bathroom and suffered hidden injury in the head as well as L 5. Ld. Counsel submits that doctor advised total bed rest and there is nobody in the family except the small children and old mother to take her to the hospital. Ld. counsel submits that pain has become unbearable in the back and she is not even able to stand on her foot therefore presence of accused is required for her treatment. Furthermore son of the accused is also required treatment and nobody there in the family to take wife and son to the hospital. The old mother is not in a position to take care of the wife and children, and other relatives are not coming forward to help, therefore, accused be released on interim bail for two weeks on humanitarian ground for treatment of ailing wife and son. Ld. Addl. PP submits that there is recovery of huge commercial quantity of contraband tablets in present case and definite bar over the release of accused u/s 37 NDPS Act. Ld. Addl. PP submits that previous interim bail application of this accused on same issue was dismissed by this court vide order dated 23.10.2020 and there are no fresh grounds made out in present application. Ld. Addl. PP submits that besides the illness of the wife, illness of the child is also mentioned in the present application, however, as per the medical documents, Master Vivaan S/o accused visited Mata Chanan Devi hospital on 06.06.2020 and thereafter did not visit the 2 hospital. As per the report of the hospital, the patient do not require any surgical intervention and no investigation also ordered. Ld. Addl. PP submits that as per medical documents dated 09.09.2020 annexed with bail application, Arti, wife of accused is stated to have appeared in emergency of DDU due to fall in bathroom three days back however no history of LOC /ENT bleed and seizures thereafter, she again appeared in DDU hospital on 18.09.2020 and doctors advised Xrays and complete bed rest. Ld. Addl. PP submits that during verification at DDU hospital it was revealed that Mrs. Arti, wife of accused did not get the Xray and NCCT done as prescribed by the doctor and it is also revealed that wife of accused alongwith her children and mother Ram Murti is residing at Raghu Nagar and father of accused alongwith family residing in Dabri. Ld. Addl. PP submits that wife of accused visited the hospital on 9th and 18th September and not thereafter and has even not got conducted the prescribed tests from the hospital thus no exceptional circumstances made out for release of interim bail in terms of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Athar Parvez Vs. State Crl. Ref. 1/2015 passed vide order dated 26.02.2016. Ld. Addl. PP submits that the present case is also not covered under the guidelines dated 18.05.2020 issued by the High Powered Committee of Hon'ble High Court as there is recovery of commercial quantity of contraband. Ld. Addl. PP submits that this application is liable to be dismissed. Heard. There is a recovery of commercial quantity of the contraband in present case therefore, there is definite bar u/s 37 NDPS Act over the release of accused on bail. The earlier application for interim was dismissed on 23.10.2020 however the present application filed by annexing another document of treatment of minor son of accused which is also dated 06.06.2020 i.e. around 05 months back. As per verification report, the son was seen at Mata Chanan Devi hospital and advised treatment but no immediate investigations were ordered, however thereafter the son was not shown in the hospital. There is nothing to suggest that the condition of the 3 son is not well. The next medical document is of the wife Arti of accused. As per the emergency card dated 09.09.2020 of DDU hospital, she disclosed the history of fall in the bathroom three days back, however found conscious, no seizures etc. Thereafter she again appeared in the emergency of DDU hospital on 18.09.2020 with history of lower backache and headache occipital region with history of fall in the bathroom 08 days back and she was advised complete bed rest and NCCT of head and Xray. However no document annexed with the application but as per report, the patient Arti did not get the Xray and NCCT done as prescribed by the doctor. Thereafter she again appeared on 15.10.2020 and as per report filed, the treating doctor namely Swati reported that patient appeared on 15.10.2020 on emergency basis with report of lower backache under evaluation but present medical condition cannot be ascertained. She was referred to orthopedic and as per report of Dr Mukesh Kumar of DDU hospital dated 16.10.2020, the actual present condition cannot be ascertained without proper investigation however the investigation was not conducted by wife of accused. No document of investigation filed. Ld. counsel vehemently submitted that investigation could not be conducted as nobody in the family to take her wife to hospital for investigation. The medical documents do not suggest her condition to be very precarious. There are other family members of the accused residing nearby vicinity. No exceptional circumstances are made out for release of accused Rajender on interim bail. Hence, the present application is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. Copy of the order be given dasti as well as be sent to accused Rajender in jail. Order be uploaded on Delhi District Courts website.

(Ajay Kumar Jain) Spl. Judge, NDPS/N. Delhi 17.11.2020 CBN Vs Surendra Kumar SC No. 138/2020

17.11.2020 Matter heard through video conferencing. Present: Sh. Satish Aggarwala, Ld. SPP for CBN through VC. Sh S S Das, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused Surender Kumar through VC.

Ld. counsel submits that this is an application for return of medicines seized by CBN. CBN had illegally seized the medicines vide panchnama dated 15.10.2019 from the shop of the applicant. Ld. counsel submits that accused was having proper licence for holding / possessing the said medicines, therefore, applicant is entitled for receiving back the medicines. Ld. counsel submits that some of the medicines seized are not yet expired and therefore to be returned to the dealers from where it is purchased and if it is not returned, then the applicant shall face irreparable financial loss. Ld. counsel submits that therefore the medicines be returned to the applicant/accused Surender Kumar. Ld. SPP submits that the medicines seized vide panchnama dated 15.10.2019 and are the case property therefore cannot be returned. The medicines seized are fully liable to be confiscated u/s 60 NDPS Act. The disposal of seized goods are governed by section 52A NDPS Act and application u/s 52A NDPS Act is pending before the competent court which is being adjourned because of delaying tactics and applicant/accused had taken plea that present application is pending before this court. Ld. SPP submits that there is no provision for returning the medicines and accused also not disclosed in this application under which section it can be returned by this court, thus present application is liable to be dismissed. Heard. This is an application for returning the seized medicines vide panchnama dated 15.12.2019. The disposal of medicines is governed u/s 52A NDPS Act and proceedings under this section is pending 2 before competent court, and there is no express statutory provision disclosed to return the medicines which are case property by this court. In these facts and circumstances, the application stands dismissed. However it is clarified that this order shall not prejudice the outcome of the application u/s 52A NDPS Act pending before the competent court. Application disposed of accordingly. Copy of the order be given dasti to parties. Copy of the order be uploaded on the website of New Delhi District. (Ajay Kumar Jain) Spl. Judge, NDPS/N. Delhi 17.11.2020 Case No. VIII/36/DZU/2020 NCB Vs Manoj Kumar

17.11.2020 Matter heard through video conferencing. Present: Sh. Mukesh Malik, Ld. SPP for NCB through VC. Sh Ashish Raizada and Sh Ramneek Mishra, Ld counsels for applicant/accused Manoj Kumar along with Ms Sushma Gupta, wife of accused through VC.

Ld. SPP for NCB seeks some more time to file reply. At request, list this application for reply and arguments on 24.11.2020. Copy of the order be uploaded on the website of New Delhi District. (Ajay Kumar Jain) Spl. Judge, NDPS/N. Delhi 17.11.2020 FIR No. 39/16 PS Spl Cell State Vs Mohd Hafiz

17.11.2020 Matter heard through video conferencing. Present: Sh. Ravindra Kumar, Ld. Additional PP for the State through video conferencing. Sh Kanhaiya Singhal, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused Mohd Hafiz through VC.

Ld. counsel for accused submits that accused is presently on interim bail, therefore requested that present application be listed with regular case on date already fixed i.e. 16.12.2020. Accordingly, list this application for arguments on date already fixed i.e. 16.12.2020. Copy of the order be uploaded on the website of New Delhi District. (Ajay Kumar Jain) Spl. Judge, NDPS/N. Delhi 17.11.2020