Bail Application No. 459; 460 & 461 State Vs 1 Jyoti 2 Sunita 3 Pooja FIR No.778/15 U/s 323/341/354/34 IPC PS Adarsh Nagar

Transcription

1 Bail Application No. 424;425;426;427 State Vs 1 Shakuntala Dhankhar 2 K.K. Khankhar 3 Anupriya 4 Ajay Dhankhar FIR No. 1/2016 U/s 498A/406 IPC PS K.N. Katju Marg. Present: Mr. Joginder Malik ld. PP for the State alongwith SI Anwar Khan. Shri Ghanshyam Ld. counsel for complainant with complainant. Shri S.P. Dhankar Ld. counsel for applicants. Matter had earlier been referred to Mediation Center, Rohini Court but has been received back as unsettled. On basis of information furnished by SI Anwar Khan, it is informed by Ld. PP that no permission has yet been received from competent authority for placing the applicants under arrest in this matter. That being the position, it is hereby directed that in the event of receipt of permission to arrest the applicants in this matter, they be not so arrested until and unless they have been served with notice in writing 5 days prior to placing them under arrest in this case. Applicants however are directed to join investigation as and when called upon to do so in accordance with law. Applications stand disposed off accordingly.

2 Bail Application No. 459; 460 & 461 State Vs 1 Jyoti 2 Sunita 3 Pooja FIR No.778/15 U/s 323/341/354/34 IPC PS Adarsh Nagar Present: Mr. Joginder Malik ld. PP for the State alongwith ASI Ram Avtar. Complainant in person with Cl. Shri Rakesh Chaher. Shri Suresh Tomar Ld. counsel for applicants. At the outset, it is submitted by ld. counsel for applicants that present is second application for grant of bail filed by the applicants as the earlier application was dismissed by ld court of Shri Gautam Manan vide order dated It is submitted by ld. counsel that thereafter coaccused Rajinder was granted regular bail on and co-accused Harender was granted anticipatory bail by ld. court of Shri Sanjay Aggarwal vide order dated Ld. counsel further submits that allegations against the applicants were similar to those against co-accused who are already on bail. It is further submitted that applicant Sunita is aged about 58 years of age while applicant Jyoti and Pooja are aged between 27 to 29 years. It was prayed that a trivial dispute had taken place over parking of car in the area and cross FIRs came to be registered in that regard. Ld. counsel submitted that as the applicants were ladies and prepared to join investigation and were apprehending their arrest in this matter, they be protected. Opposing, it is submitted by ld. PP that after registration of FIR, injury sustained by the victim complainant had been opined by doctor concerned to be grievous. It was further submitted that there had been disputes between complainant and family of the accused persons since It was further submitted that after the present incident which took place on

3 , the complainant had again been attacked by the present applicants and their family members and others on and FIR No. 854/15 stands registered U/s 147/149/323/308/341/342/34 IPC against the present applicants and others in that regard. Ld. PP submitted that the complainant was under great fear of her safety at hands of the applicants and others and hence prayed that applications be dismissed. Ld. counsel for complainant further submits that application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Harender has already been filed before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi but is still pending in the Filing Section. This court has given thoughtful consideration to arguments advanced. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case and in view of registration of a subsequent FIR against the applicants involving an offence U/s 308 IPC wherein present complainant is the victim, despite the applicants being ladies, this court is of considered opinion that they are not entitled to the relief being claimed. Another factor which has weighed in forming of opinion by this court is the fact that present are second applications for grant of anticipatory bail as the earlier applications were dismissed on All three applications stands disposed off accordingly.

4 Bail Application No. 668 State Vs Vikram Kaushik FIR No.1028/15 U/s 356/379/411/34 IPC PS S.P. Badli Present: Mr. Joginder Malik ld. PP for the State alongwith HC Ganga Dhar. Shri V.K. Mishra Ld. counsel for applicant. At the outset, on basis of report filed by HC Ganga Dhar, it is informed by ld. PP that during course of judicial TIP conducted on the complainant had failed to identify the accused. Copy of TIP proceedings have been perused by this court. Keeping in view aforesaid, applicant is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in sum of Rs.5,000/- alongwith one surety of like amount to satisfaction of Ld. MM/Link MM/Duty MM. Applicant however is directed to join investigation as and when called upon to do so. Copy of order be sent to Superintendent, Jail for information. Present application stands disposed off accordingly.

5 Bail Application No. 827 State Vs Gagan FIR No /15 U/s 380/411 IPC PS Adarsh Nagar Present: Mr. Joginder Malik ld. PP for the State alongwith HC Dinesh. Shri Narender Mukhi Ld. counsel for applicant. It is submitted by ld. counsel that applicant is apprehending his arrest in this matter. It was submitted that applicant had inimical terms with other two co-accused who have falsely named him in this case and that he is being sought to be arrested in this case on that ground. It is further submitted that applicant has clean antecedents. It was prayed that he be protected. Opposing, it is submitted by ld. PP that theft of a car took place on and the incident was captured in CCTV footage. It was pointed out that three boys came on a motorcycle and that while two remained seated on the motorcycle, the third committed theft of the car. On basis of information furnished by SI Dinesh it was informed by ld. PP that the two boys who remained seated on the motorcycle have since been arrested while the third person who committed actual theft was the present applicant. It was submitted that he had also been named as being co-accused by the other two boys. It was further informed that the stolen vehicle has not yet been recovered and that seven other stolen vehicles had been recovered at instance of the two co-accuseds. It was claimed that custodial interrogation of the applicant was necessary. Dismissal of application was prayed.

6 Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds itself in agreement with submission made by ld. PP. Accordingly, application is dismissed.

7 Bail Application No. 904 State Vs Anil Kumar Gupta FIR No.1325/15 U/s 419/420/468/471/120B IPC PS S.P. Badli Present: Mr. Joginder Malik ld. PP for the State alongwith SI Dharmender. Shri Neeraj Dahiya ld. counsel for complainant. Shri Vikram Chand Sharma Ld. counsel for applicant. It is submitted by ld. counsel that applicant has now been in custody since despite being innocent. It is submitted that the applicant under bonafide belief had got opened an account for Ram Sawroop in his joint name and that on asking of Ram Swaroop, had handed over some blank signed cheques to him. As per ld counsel, applicant was not aware about the transaction in respect of property in question and had no role to play therein. It was prayed that he be released on bail. Opposing, it is submitted by ld. PP that Ram Swaroop who was owner of property in question had earlier sold it to one Shiv Avtar and subsequently sold the same property to the complainant for sum of Rs.73 Lacs. It was pointed out that out of the sale proceeds, a sum of Rs.30 Lacs had been deposited in separate personal account of the present applicant and some amount thereof had also been withdrawn by the applicant. It was claimed by ld. PP that apparently applicant was hand in glove with other co-accused persons. It was submitted that investigation was still pending. Grant of bail was opposed

8 Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, despite the applicant having been in custody since , this court is of considered opinion that applicant does not deserve the relief being claimed. Application is accordingly dismissed. Copy of order be given dasti as prayed.

9 Bail Application No. 906; 907; 908; 909 State Vs 1 Sagar 2 Roshni 3 Jyoti 4 Baby FIR No.52/16 U/s 406/498A/34 IPC PS Alipur Present: Mr. Joginder Malik ld. PP for the State alongwith SI Gajender. Ms. Jaya Sharma ld. counsel for complainant. Shri J.J. Tyagi Ld. counsel for applicants. On basis of information furnished by SI Gajender, it is informed by Ld. PP that no permission has yet been received from competent authority for placing any of the applicants under arrest in this matter. That being the position, it is hereby directed that in the event of receipt of permission to arrest the applicants in this matter, they be not so arrested until and unless they have been served with notice in writing 5 days prior to placing them under arrest in this case. Applicants however are directed to join investigation as and when called upon to do so in accordance with law. Applications stand disposed off accordingly.

10 Bail Application No. 910 State Vs Satnarayan FIR No. 56/16 U/s 498A/406/304B IPC PS Bawana Present: Mr. Joginder Malik ld. PP for the State alongwith SI Ajay Kumar. Shri Yogesh Sharma Ld counsel for complainant. Shri R.S. Malik Ld. counsel for applicant. It is submitted by ld. counsel that applicant is father-in-law of the deceased who is now apprehending his arrest in this matter. It was pointed out that the deceased got married to son of the applicant on and committed suicide on i.e. 7 days short of seven years. During course of his submissions ld. counsel has taken this court through the FIR which was registered on on statement of father of the deceased. It was pointed out that there was no allegation therein against the present applicant regarding his having demanded any dowry or having harassed the deceased in connection with the same. Attention of this court was drawn to facts mentioned in the FIR wherein the complainant had stated that he felt that his son-in-law had an affair and there used to be disputes between his daughter and son-in-law on that account. Ld. counsel further submitted that applicant was prepared to join investigation as and when called upon to do so. It was prayed that he be protected. Opposing, it is submitted by ld. PP that there had been no delay in registration of FIR in as much as statement of father of deceased had been recoded on though FIR was registered on It is further informed by ld. PP that investigation was in initial stages and that statement of mother of deceased had not yet been recorded. It was however pointed out that mother of the deceased had lodged DD No. 39 B on at PS

11 Bawana which was in the form of her statement wherein specific allegations were made against applicant and others regarding their having demanded dowry and having harassed and tortured the deceased in that regard. Ld. PP submitted that keeping in view allegations against the applicant and as the deceased had expired within 7 years of marriage, application be dismissed. In support of his submissions, ld. counel for applicant has placed reliance on Inderjit Kaur Vs. The State [2005 II AD (Cr.) DHC 354] & Satvir Singh & Ors. Vs. Tejinder Pal Kaur [2001 VIII AD (SC) 221] It is strange that statement of mother of deceased has not yet been recorded in this case despite 10 days having passed since her death. No explanation in this regard has been afforded on part of investigating agency. Without commenting on merits or otherwise of allegation in this case, in view of what has been mentioned in the FIR and as statement of mother of deceased is yet to be recorded, it is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, applicant be released on bail till subject to his furnishing personal bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount to satisfaction of arresting officer/sho, PS Bawana. He is further directed to join investigation and to co-operate in investigation of the case as and when he may be called upon to do so in writing. Applicant further is directed not to leave NCR of Delhi without seeking prior permission in this regard from Ld. Ilaqa Magistrate. Present application stands disposed off accordingly. Copy of order be given dasti.

12 Bail Application No. 911 State Vs Mukul Aggarwal FIR No.74/2016 U/s 498A/406 IPC & Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. PS K.N.K. Marg Present: Mr. Joginder Malik ld. PP for the State alongwith SI Suresh. Shri Vivek Aggarwal ld. counsel for complainant. Shri S.C. Yadav Ld. counsel for applicant. It is submitted by ld counsel that vide notice dated applicant had been called upon to join investigation on Ld. counsel submits that applicant apprehends his arrest. On basis of information furnished by SI Suresh, it is informed by Ld. PP that no permission has yet been received from competent authority for placing the applicant under arrest in this matter. That being the position, it is hereby directed that in the event of receipt of permission to arrest the applicant in this matter, he be not so arrested until and unless he has been served with notice in writing 5 days prior to placing him under arrest in this case. Applicant however is directed to join investigation on and also as and when called upon to do so in accordance with law. Application stands disposed off accordingly.

13 Bail Application No. 920 State Vs Faiyaz Aman FIR No. 448/13 U/s 419,420,498A/34 IPC PS Alipur Present: Mr. Joginder Malik ld. PP for the State alongwith SI Ravinder Sh. AK. Azad, Ld. counsel for applicant. It is submitted by ld, counsel that applicant was on bail in this case since January, 14 and that the bail was cancelled by ld. court of Ms. Richa Manchanda, MM, Mahila Court, Rohini vide order dated ld. counsel submits that he now apprehends his arrest in this matter. It is further submitted by ld. counsel that ld. MM was further pleased to issue NBW against the present applicant and he be granted protection to get the same cancelled. Keeping in view fact that the applicant had been on bail in this case since January, 14 and is now prepared to appear before ld. MM concerned for cancellation of NBW, it is hereby directed that in the event of his arrest, applicant be released on bail till , subject to his furnishing personal bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount to satisfaction of arresting officer/sho, PS Alipur. He is further directed to appear before ld. MM Concerned within that period for moving application seeking cancellation of NBW as has been prayed for on behalf of the applicant. Present application stands disposed off accordingly.

14 Bail Application No.921 State Vs Rakesh Kumar FIR No.1328/15 U/s 406/420/511/120B IPC PS Narela Present: Mr. Joginder Malik ld. PP for the State alongwith SI Satish Kumar. Sh. Pradeep Rana, Ld. counsel for complainant. Shri Ravinder Kumar ld. counsel for applicant. It is submitted that co-accused Raj Kawari was granted anticipatory bail by this court vide order dated It is further submitted by ld. counsel for the applicant that applicant is being sought to be arrested in the present false case. As per ld. counsel the complainant had taken loan of Rs.70 Lacs from mother of the applicant in the year 2013 and towards return of loan amount he had issued a cheque to her which subsequently was dishonoured. It was claimed that there had been no other financial dealing between the complainant and the applicant. It was prayed that as the applicant was apprehending his arrest, he be protected. Opposing, it is firstly submitted by ld. PP that co-accused Raj Kawari had been granted protection as she was a lady aged about 50 years of age. It was submitted that merits of the case were not taken into consideration at that stage. It is further submitted that a Memorandum of Understanding had been entered into between complainant and the applicant and two other partners whereunder two blank signed cheques had been handed over to the applicant towards payment of rent of partnership premises for two months. It was claimed that rent for two months had been paid through one cheque by

15 the applicant while the other was misused by him by putting in figure of Rs.70 Lacs. It was further submitted that sum of Rs.27,50,000/- due to the firm from one Dhiraj had been collected by the applicant on but had not been deposited in account of the firm. On basis of information furnished by SI Satish, it was submitted by ld PP that despite service of notice, applicant had not joined investigation and that NBW had already been got issued from court of Ld MM concerned against the applicant. Grant of protection was opposed. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds itself in agreement with submission made by ld. PP. Accordingly, finding no merit in the application the same is dismissed.

16 Bail Application No.912 State Vs Pali FIR No.73/16 U/s 392/506/34 IPC PS S.P. Badli Present: Mr. Joginder Malik ld. PP for the State alongwith HC Sanjay Kumar. Shri Santosh Kumar Ld. counsel for applicant. It is submitted that applicant has now been in custody since despite being innocent and despite having clean antecedents. ld. counsel has further submitted that nothing incriminating was recovered from possession of the applicant. It was further pointed out that there had been delay of one day in registration of FIR. It was prayed that applicant be released on bail. Opposing, it was submitted by ld. PP that on at about PM the applicant alongwith his accomplices had threatened and robbed the complainant of his mobile phone and cash Rs.10,000/- and the complainant had been threatened not to disclose the fact to anyone. It was further submitted that on applicant was apprehended by the complainant alongwith his friend Jai Prakash. It was submitted that other coaccuseds were yet to be apprehended. On asking of this court it was affirmed by HC Sanjay that nothing incriminating was recovered from possession of applicant and that there was no record of his previous involvement in any matter.

17 Keeping in view aforesaid, applicant is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in sum of Rs.7,500/- alongwith one surety of like amount to satisfaction of Ld. MM/Link MM/Duty MM. Applicant however is directed to join investigation as and when called upon to do so. Copy of order be sent to Superintendent, Jail for information. Present application stands disposed off accordingly.

18 State Vs Imran FIR No. 371/15 PS Jahangirpuri Present: Mr. Joginder Malik ld. PP for the State. Accused on bail with counsel. As per intimation received from the IO FSL result was not yet ready. Let a letter of request be sent to Director, FSL for expediting process of sending report to this court. Fresh court notice be issued to IO for appearance for

19 State Vs Ajay FIR No.668/15 PS S.B. Dairy Present: Mr. Joginder Malik ld. PP for the State. Accused in custody with Amicus Curiae Shri Himanshu Bhuttan. To come up for PE for

20 State Vs Pardeep & Others FIR No.144/14 PS Bawana Present: Mr. Joginder Malik ld. PP for the State all accuseds on bail with counsel Shri Parmesh Kumar. Heard arguments on point of charge. Vide separate order dictated in open court, charges have been ordered to be framed against all the accused persons for having committed offences punishable U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 323/34 IPC. Charges accordingly framed against accused persons who plead not guilty and claim trial. Now to come up for PE for

21 State Vs Ranjeet FIR No.742/13 PS S.P. Badli Present: Mr. Joginder Malik ld. PP for the State. Ms. Malti Devi claiming to be wife of accused has appeared. She has moved an application to the effect that accused is in custody in some other case since On request personal appearance of accused is exempted for today. PW-5 Sher Khan is present. SI Jai Kumar is also present. Witnesses in attendance are discharged unexamined. Let court notice be issued to surety for accused for appearance for next date of hearing. To come up on

22 State Vs Inder etc. FIR No. 545/14 PS Mukherji Nagar Present: Mr. Joginder Malik ld. PP for the State with IO. Accused Dinesh in custody. Other two accused on bail. Examination in chief of PW-5 recorded. Cross examination deferred in view of facts mentioned in the evidence sheet. PW Ct. Inderjeet and Ct. Trilok are present but discharged unexamined as it is 3.10 PM and ld. Amicus Curiae has not come being unwell. Court had been busy in disposal of bail applications. Now to come up for PE for

23 State Vs Stanely Martin FIR No.89/15 PS Crime Branch Present: Mr. Joginder Malik ld. PP for the State with IO. Accused in custody with Amicus Curiae Ms. Sunita Tiwari. Statement of PW-2 & 3 recorded. PW HC Sandeep is present. He seeks permission to leave being not well. No other PW is present. To come up for PE for

24 State Vs Prabhat Kumar etc. FIR No. 80/15 PS Crime Branch Present: Mr. Joginder Malik ld. PP for the State with ASI Shailender Singh. All three accuseds on bail with proxy counsel. Adjournment requested as ld. counsel for accused persons is reportedly not well today. To come up for misc. arguments for

25 CA 32/15 Ramphal Shukla Vs. State. Present: available. Appellant in person with proxy counsel Shri Pankaj Kumar. Mr. Joginder Malik ld. PP for the State. It is already 3.00 PM. ld. counsel for appellant is reportedly not To come up for arguments on

26 State Vs Nanhe FIR No. 481/15 PS Model Town Present: Mr. Joginder Malik ld. PP for the State. Accused in custody. To come up for consideration of charge for

27 CR 6/2016 Anoop Singh Vs. Ram Pyari. Fresh revision received on assignment. It be checked and registered. Present: Shri I.S. Siroha Ld. counsel for petitioners. By way of the revision petition petitioner has challenged an order dated passed by ld. court of Shri Virender Singh, MM, North. Vide the impugned order ld. trial court while allowing application U/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C in case CC 204/1, PS S.P. Badli has ordered therefore, the concerned SHO is directed an FIR under relevant sections. Ld. counsel submits that as per his information, no FIR has yet been registered at PS S.P. Badli. Ld. counsel request that operation of impugned order may kindly be stayed. Issue notice of revision petition to respondents on filing of PF & RC by the petitioner for TCR be summoned for said date. Operation of the impugned order dated passed by ld. court of Shri Virender Singh, MM, North is stayed till next date of hearing. Copy of order be given dasti as prayed.

28