FIR No. 226/2020 PS Special Cell, Lodhi Road U/s 21/29 ...

FIR No. 226/2020PS Special Cell, Lodhi RoadU/s 21/29 NDPS ActState Vs Rahul Handique

07.01.2021

Matter heard through video conferencing.

Present: Sh. Ravindra Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State through VC.

Sh. Gopal Krishan and Ms. Ragini Agarwal, Ld. Counsels for

applicant/ accused Rahul Handique through VC.

Part arguments heard.

Ld. Addl. PP submits that some time is required to seek

instructions from IO.

Let IO be called for next date of hearing.

List this application for 12.01.2021.

Copy of the order be uploaded on the website of New Delhi

District.

(Ajay Kumar Jain) Spl. Judge, NDPS/N. Delhi

07.01.2021

FIR No. 34/14PS Spl Cell U/s 21/29 NDPS Act State Vs Mohd Zamir & Ors.

07.01.2021


Present: Sh. Ravindra Kumar, Ld. Additional PP for the State

through video conferencing.

Sh Y K Saxena, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused Mohd

Saleem Khan through VC.

Ld. counsel submits that till date, he has not received the copy

of reply.

Ld. Addl. PP submits that he will supply the copy of reply.

Part arguments on this application also heard.

List this application for further arguments on 28.01.2021.


District.


07.01.2021

FIR No. 09/19PS Spl Cell U/s 22/29 NDPS Act State Vs Sunil Kumar & Ors.

07.01.2021


Present: Sh. Ravindra Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State through VC.

Ms Sushma Sharma, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused Rajesh

Dutta @ Raj who is on interim bail through VC.

Part arguments heard.

Ld. Addl. PP submits that he requires some instructions from

IO.

Let IO be called for next date of hearing.

Accordingly, list these applications on 11.01.2021.


District.


07.01.2021

Case No. VIII/4/DZU/2015NCB Vs Satyam Kumar Sah & Ors.

07.01.2021


Present: Sh. Rajesh Manchanda, Ld. SPP for NCB through VC.

Sh Anuj Kumar Ranjan, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused

Ashok Kumar Tripathi through VC.

Ld. SPP not filed reply. Last opportunity given.

List this application for reply and arguments on 16.01.2021.


District.


07.01.2021

Shivangi Singh Vs NCBCase No. VIII/25/DZU/2019

07.01.2021


Present: Sh Sanjeev Prakash Upadhyay, Ld. counsel for

applicant/accused Shivangi Singh through VC.

Sh P C Aggarwal, Ld. SPP for NCB through VC.

Ld. counsel for accused submits that reply not received.

Ld. SPP submits that he will supply the copy of reply today

itself through email.

Accordingly, list this application for 08.01.2021.


District.


07.01.2021

Bhanu Pratap Singh Vs NCBCase No. VIII/25/DZU/2019

07.01.2021


Present: Sh Sanjeev Prakash Upadhyay, Ld. counsel for

applicant/accused Bhanu Pratap Singh through VC.

Sh P C Aggarwal, Ld. SPP for NCB through VC.

Ld. counsel for accused submits that reply not received.

Ld. SPP submits that he will supply the copy of reply today

itself through email.

Accordingly, list this application for 08.01.2021.


District.


07.01.2021

NCB Vs Lhingnichat LhouyumCase No. VIII/33/DZU/2020

07.01.2021


Present: Sh. Mukesh Malik, Ld. SPP for NCB through VC.

None for applicant/accused Lhingnichat Lhouyum.

One more opportunity given.

List this application for 13.01.2021.


District.


07.01.2021

At 11.30am

At this stage, Sh Gaurav Chandhok, Ld. counsel for

applicant/accused appeared through VC and he is apprised of the next date

of hearing.


07.01.2021

Case No. VIII/59/DZU/2020U/s 8/20/29 NDPS Act NCB Vs Haresh Rawal

07.01.2021


Present: Sh P C Aggarwal, Ld. SPP for NCB through video conferencing.

Sh Anil Garg, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused Haresh Rawal

through VC.

Ld. SPP requested some time to file reply.

At request, list this application for reply and arguments on

14.01.2021.


District.


07.01.2021

Case No. VIII/6/DZU/2020U/s 8/22 NDPS Act NCB Vs Manoj Kumar

07.01.2021


Present: Sh. Rajesh Manchanda, Ld. SPP for NCB through VC.

Sh Ankit Rana, Ld. counsel for applicant/accused Manoj

Kumar through VC.

This is an application pertaining to report filed by IO however

Ld. counsel for accused submits that this application is not complete,

therefore, wants to withdraw the same.

Accordingly, present application is dismissed as withdrawn.

Application disposed of.


District.


07.01.2021

Bail application No.1698/20FIR No.83/20

Vandana Sodhi Vs. State of NCT of DelhiPS : Tilak Marg

U/s: 419/420/511/406/389/506/120B IPC & u/s 66D of the IT Act

At 4:05 PM

07.01.2021

Present: Sh. Vivek K. Nasa, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused (through VC).Sh. Rajat Kalra, Ld. Addl. PP for State (through VC).None for nonapplicant/complainant (through VC).

Vide this order I shall dispose of the anticipatory bail application

u/s 438 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the applicant/accused Vandana Sodhi.

Arguments have already been heard.

ORDER:1. Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused had submitted that the non

applicant/complainant being an IAS Officer and Principal Secretary to the Govt.

of NCT of Delhi had misused his official position to convert a matrimonial

dispute with the applicant/accused into this false case FIR, in connivance with

police officials. He had submitted that on the complaint of the applicant/accused

dated 21.08.2020, the present case FIR was registered on 17.10.2020 for the

offences u/s 419/420/506/511/120B IPC and u/s 66D of IT Act, out of which only

section 420 IPC is nonbailable, but subsequently, as an afterthought, through the

supplementary statement of the nonapplicant/complainant, sections 406/389 IPC

(which are nonbailable) were also invoked in the matter. He had further

submitted that the FIR does not mention the previous complaint dated 03.06.2020

Page 1 of 22

given by the complainant to the police, as regards the matter (copy of which has

been filed on record by the applicant/accused). He had also submitted that no

allegation qua the offence u/s 389 IPC was made in the first complaint dated

03.06.2020. He had further submitted that as regards the offence u/s 389 IPC, the

nonapplicant/complainant, in the FIR, had falsely alleged that the coaccused

Sandeep Sumbly had made a Whatsapp call to him, knowing fully well that no

such call was made and that no electronic record qua verification of any Whatsapp

call can be obtained from Whatsapp. He had further submitted that even from the

alleged contents of the said Whatsapp call, no offence u/s 389 IPC is made out, as

the Goa property had already been gifted by the nonapplicant/complainant to the

applicant/accused prior to the said call (with the gift deed executed on

19.04.2019) and in any case, no liability for the said alleged call could be fastened

upon the applicant/accused as, admittedly, neither had the applicant/accused made

any such call nor had the coaccused Sandeep Sumbly claimed that he was making

the said call on the request or the direction of the applicant/accused. He had

further submitted that as regards the offence u/s 406 IPC, no gold jewellery

articles were entrusted by the nonapplicant/complainant to the applicant/accused

or demanded back, and it is the admitted case of the applicant/accused in the FIR

that he had taken some of his articles on his own to the matrimonial home of

applicant/accused in Gurugram where they lived together. In this context, he

further stated that no proof of ownership of the gold jewellery articles, allegedly

entrusted to the applicant/accused, has been provided to the investigating agency.

He had further submitted that the applicant/accused had requested the non

applicant/complainant and her counsel had also requested the Ld. Counsel for

nonapplicant/complainant to take back the 'Celerio' car of the non

applicant/complainant parked in the said premises, but the non

applicant/complainant malafidely did not pick up the same in order to make a case

Page 2 of 22

for the offence u/s 406 IPC. He had further submitted that as regards the alleged

telephonic conversation between one Renu and the nonapplicant/complainant, no

ingredient(s) for any criminal offences are made out from the said conversation

and in any case, no liability for the said conversation could be fastened upon the

applicant/accused. He had further submitted that the present case FIR had been

falsely initiated to pressurize the applicant/accused to settle the matrimonial

dispute to the satisfaction of the nonapplicant/complainant and was a misuse of

law on the latter's part. He had also submitted that the applicant/accused had given

a reply dated 19.12.2020 to the IO, expressing her willingness to join investigation

and cooperate in the same, there is no likelihood of the applicant/accused

absconding, no custodial interrogation of the applicant/accused is required and in

view of the COVID19 pandemic, sending the applicant/accused to custody would

make her more vulnerable to be infected with the COVID19 infection. He had

accordingly prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant/accused.

2. Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused had also relied upon the

following judgments in support of his arguments:

(i) 'The Commissioner of Police & Ors Vs Devender Anand &

Ors' (AIR 2019 SC 3807).

(ii) 'Binod Kumar Vs. State of Bihar' [2014(4)RC

R(Criminal)881].

(iii) 'G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.' [(2002) 2 SCC (Cri) 513]

(iv) 'Sushila Aggarwal vs State (NCT of Delhi)' [AIR 2020 SC

831].

(vi) 'Ilaben Wd/o. Dipakkumar Dhanraj Shah v State of Gujarat'

[MANU/GJ/0339/1992]

(vii) Crl. Misc. No.M30078/2011 titled 'Shakuntla Vs. State of

Page 3 of 22

Haryana' decided on 06.12.2011 by Hon'ble Punjab &

Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

(viii) 'Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. N.C.T. Delhi and Ors' [AIR 2001

SC 1444].

(ix) 'Sidhram Mhetre v. State Of Maharashtra'

[2011SC(2011)1SCC 694]

(x) 'Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab' [(1980) 2 SCC 565].

3. Per contra, the Ld. Addl. PP for State assisted by the Ld. Counsel

for nonapplicant/complainant and the IO, had strongly opposed the anticipatory

bail application of the applicant/accused on the grounds of the nature of the

offences and the alleged role of the applicant/accused. He had submitted that the

grant of anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief, given in exceptional

circumstances, where the role of accused is beyond any iota of doubt. He also

urged that the court has to balance the interest of investigation and that of the

accused. He had further submitted that in case anticipatory bail is granted,

investigation will be scuttled. He had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in 'CBI vs. Anil Sharma' [1997(7) SCC 187]. He also relied upon

the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Narinderjeet Singh

Sahni & Anr. v. UOI & Ors.' (AIR 2001 SC 3810) to submit that an accused

facing charge under sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B IPC is ordinarily not entitled

to invoke the provisions of section 438 Cr.P.C., unless it is established that such

criminal accusation is not a bona fide one. He had also submitted that section 406

& 389 IPC had been invoked on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint

of the nonapplicant/complainant whereupon FIR in question was registered, and

had not been invoked on the basis of any subsequent supplementary statement. He

had further submitted that since a conspiracy angle is present in the matter,

therefore, to unearth the said conspiracy, partly executed by aforesaid Renu in

Page 4 of 22

connivance with the applicant by means of the telephonic conversation with the

nonapplicant/complainant qua false implication of the nonapplicant/complainant

in a false POCSO case on the complaint of daughter of the applicant/accused, her

custodial interrogation is required. He had further submitted that the anticipatory

bail application of the coaccused Sandeep Sumbly was dismissed vide order

dated 28.12.2020 by the Ld. Roster Judge, PHC, New Delhi. He had further

submitted that the applicant/accused is the main conspirator and thus, in case bail

is granted to her, her complete role will never be revealed. He had also submitted

that since the articles of the nonapplicant/complainant entrusted to the

applicant/accused had not been returned by her in spite of their demand by non

applicant/complainant and despite the filing of the present case FIR, a clear cut

case u/s 406 IPC against the applicant/accused is made out, her custodial

interrogation is required to recover the said articles and in case anticipatory bail is

granted to the applicant/accused, the said articles will never be recovered. He had

further submitted that the SIM card used by the aforesaid Renu had been

purchased in the name of Sandeep Sumbly, and was used in the Redmi phone of

the applicant/accused and in an iPhone by the said Renu while communicating

with the nonapplicant/complainant. He had further submitted that the

applicant/accused in her reply dated 25.08.2020 to the IO had claimed that the

SIM card had been given to the nonapplicant/complainant, but after the CDR of

the said SIM card usage was obtained which revealed that the same was used in

the Redmi phone of the applicant/accused, while the applicant/accused in her

subsequent reply dated 19.12.2020 claimed that the said SIM card had been

misplaced, all of which are contradictory stands. He had also submitted that the

said Renu is the daughter of the applicant/accused from her previous marriage. He

had accordingly prayed for the rejection of the anticipatory bail application.

4. The relevant extract from the reply of the IO dated 05.01.2021 is

Page 5 of 22

reproduced below:

“...It is submitted that complaint of Shri RaajivYaduvanshi R/o H.No. 14/5, Delhi Govt. OfficersFlats, Tilak Marg, New Delhi was received at PSTilak Marg. He stated that he married Mrs.Vandana Sodhi on 14.07.2018 without exchange ofdowry articles and gifts and got it registered on23.08.2018 with the Registrar of Marriage. Heintended to stay at his official residence at 14/5,Delhi Govt Officer’s Flat, Tilak Marg, New Delhi buthis wife Mrs. Vandana Sodhi started pestering himto shift to her Gurugram residence at H. No. 3092,Sector 46, Gurugram. Later on he shifted toGurugram in April’2019 with all his belongings. AtGurugram, the he noticed that Mrs Vandana haddubious relationship with one Mr Sandeep Sumblywith whom she continued to interact despiteserious objections of the complainant. Thecomplainant requested his wife Mrs Vandana toshift to Delhi on the pretext of excessive travellingand ill health which were not acceded to. Finallyhe shifted to Delhi in his official accommodation inthe month of November 19 without his belongingwhich were not allowed to be moved allegedly byMrs Vandana and her friend Mr Sandeep. Acomplaint was lodged at PS Tilak Marg vide DDNo.33-B dated 20.02.2020 to this effect forregistering a case of criminal breach of trust andcriminal intimidation against Mrs Vandana and herfriend Mr Sandeep Sumbly. The complainant alsofiled for a Divorce against Mrs Vandana in theFamily Court, Patiala House Court, Delhi. The complainant further alleged that hestarted receiving What’s app messages from9315563353 from 30.03.2020 which he did notsuspect and exchanged normal messages relatedto lockdown issues or some healing messages.When the person sending the messagescommented on the complainant’s separation fromhis wife Mrs Vandana, he reportedly called the

Page 6 of 22

person who was Renu from National News Service(NNS). She assured the complainant that she willnot divulge his private life to anybody else. It hasbeen further alleged that Mr Sandeep Sumbly andVandana Sodhi had planted Renu to interact withthe complainant with ulterior motive. Thecomplainant has also mentioned that he received amissed call from the number of one Mr Dheeraj(9899859924) who was working as a Propertybroker at Grant Arch/Ireo where Mr SandeepSumbly used to reside. The complainant has alsoalleged that on 31.05.2020 at around 4 PM Mr.Sandeep Sumbly threatened him using the mobilephone of Mr Dheeraj of dire consequences andimplicating him in cases with the help of Renu whowas planted for this reason only, & Mrs Vandana.The complainant has further alleged that MrSandeep Sumbly also demanded the transfer of hispersonal property in Goa to Mr Sandeep Sumblyand Mrs Vandana Sodhi.

It is submitted that enquiry into the matterwas conducted on the allegations levelled by thecomplainant. Ownership detail of alleged mobilephone i.e. 9315563353 was obtained ant it wasrevealed that the mobile number 9315563353 isregistered in the name of Mr Sandeep Sumbly.Notice was served upon Mr. Sandeep Sumbly andasked about the using of mobile number9315563353 and his reply was received and hestated that mobile number 9315563353 isregistered in his name and it was given to ShriRaajiv Yaduvanshi in the month of April/May 2019as requested by Ms Vandana Sodhi for better dataconnectivity in Gurugram. He also stated that hedoes not know any woman named Renu as allegedby the complainant. In this regard notice was also served uponMs. Vandana Sodhi and her written reply wasreceived and she referred to Mr Sandeep Sumblyas her financial consultant, investment adviser and

Page 7 of 22

her family friend. She denied having anyknowledge about woman named Renu and statedthat she requested Mr Sandeep Sumbly to give hisSIM of phone no.9315563353 to her husband MrYaduvanshi in the month of June 2019 as he hadsome connectivity issues.

During further enquiry, CDR of above saidmobile number was obtained and analysed. Asper CDR analysis, Mr Sandeep Sumbly called upthis number (9315563353) approx 166 times fromhis mobile number 9811319089 during 04.01.2020to 29.03.2020 and 25 times from his other numberi.e. 9818470238. Later on the mobile 9315563353was used for internet only. Only one incoming wasmade from Mr Sandeep Sumbly’s number to9315563353 on 26.04.2020. It seems thatalleged mobile number was using by the someclose person of Mr. Sandeep Sumbly. However,Mr. Raajeev Yadhuvanshi denied to receive anySIM card from Sandeep Sumbly.

During further analysis of CDRs, it has beenrevealed that alleged mobile number is found inuse with mobile instrument Redmi Lite-2 bearingIMEI number 860980041153034 from 31.12.19 to27.03.2020 and in iphone-6 bearing IMEI number356960061304890 from 29.03.20 to 31.05.20.This number is use till 31.05.2020 only. Themobile instrument Redmi Lite 2 bearing IEMI Nos.860980041153034 and 860980041153040, whichwas earlier used with SIM bearing number9315563353 from 31.12.19 to 27.03.20 is nowbeing used with the SIM no. 9971449706 ownedby Vandana Sodhi. Hence, it has been revealedthat SIM mobile number 9315563353 was using byMs Vandana Sodhi till 27.03.2020. .

On checking the True-caller Android App,the number 9315563353 is shown in the name ofVandana Sodhi. The identify of Renu could not beestablished as Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, ChiefExecutive Officer, NNS Media Group has clearly

Page 8 of 22

stated that no employee by the name of Renuworked with them. Hence above said case wasregistered and investigation taken up. During investigation, three notices u/s 41ACr.P.C. have been issued to Mr Sandeep Sumblyfor joining the investigation but he did not join theinvestigation so far.

Notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. served upon thecomplainant to provide the relevant documents andinformation and he produced the same. Detailedstatement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant wasrecorded therein he stated that Ms Vandana Sodhialong with Sandeep Sumbly and Aditi Sodhi werelooking for properties in Goa from 15th April to 1st

May 2018 and stayed in Thalassa Resort, Vagator,North Goa. During this period, she celebrated her50th Birthday on 20th April 2018. This is admittedby Vandana in her Whats App message dated 10th

October 2018, send to the complainant. At thattime i.e. April, 2018 they came to know about hisGoa Property at 190, Queeny Estate, IssocrisumVillage, Marmugao Taluka, South Goa, and alsothat he was divorced. Vandana Sodhi, Lawyer, is a2 time Divorced, having greed for property, inproven 3rd live-in relationship (since mid 2015) withSandeep Sumbly having greed for money andproperty and made a unscrupulous and novelcheating/Con-plan to Honey Trap him intomarriage having an eye on his Goa House and itsbelongings. So as a first step Vandana Sodhi sentWhats App message on 14th June, 2018 to thecomplainant that she is based in Abu Dhabi and isvisiting India and on pretext of seeking his officialhelp in Gurugram. He responded 1 week later i.e.on 21st June, 2018. She met him at PanditRavinder Angruish house at Vasant Kunj, Delhi on26th June, 2018. Ms Vandana Sodhi took into confidenceof his elder daughter Ms DevsurabheeYaduvanshi by giving her Rs 5 Lakhs, as loan

Page 9 of 22

on 4th July 2018, Copy of bank transactionstatement placed with file. On 10th July 2018,Vandana Sodhi offered him to marry her. On14th July 2018 marriage happened without dowry,only by exchange of rings at Pandit RavinderAngruish House. The Goa House made during 2004-06,during his Goa Posting, which was earned andowned by Ms Smritee, his 1st wife through her ownindependent income as a Teacher and through LICHousing Finance Loan, will go equally to her 2biological daughters i.e. Devsurabhee and Urvy asper family settlement dated 23rd September 2016. After the marriage, Vandana Sodhi instigatedDevsurabhee to bring back the fight dated 19th July2017 of both sisters and use it start DomesticViolence (DV) legal case against him and hisyounger daughter. This led to Devsurabhee filingD.V. Case No. 2 of 2019 before JMFC Panaji,Goaagainst him and Urvy on 29th Jan 2019. JMFCCourt issued Notice to him. So Vandana Sodhiand Sandeep Sumbly made Devsurabhee to file aDV Case for a resolved incident of 19thJuly2017( One and half years after the incident) and 6months after his 2nd marriage. It seems that DVCase by Devsurabhee against him was aplanned conspiracy and evil design ofVandana Sodhi and Sandeep Sumbly. When hereceived Notice and on 18th March 2019, heinformed Vandana (who was in Abu Dhabialongwith Sandeep Sumbly). Vandana, instead ofresolving the issue, 4 days later on 22nd March2019, she instigated him to file FIR againstDevsurabhee. Vandana wrote Whats Appmessage as follows:-" Also pl check with your Lawyer if based onthe recording a FIR can be lodged againstDevsurabhee for threat and fraud" (at 03:13PM on 22nd March, 2019)."She has threatened you in the recording" ( at

Page 10 of 22

03:14 PM on 22nd March, 2019).But he denied to file any FIR against his daughterDevsurbhee. Thereafter Vandana told him that“Devsurabhee wants the entire Goa House forherself as a settlement for withdrawal of herDV case. This way Urvy will not get her oneHalf share as per family settlement agreementof Sep 2016 and Urvy would be put todisadvantage and Devsurabhee will gain”. Vandana Sodhi, as a Lawyer, and using thetrust of a wife betrayed his trust and cheated him byher advice to go for filing Appeal in Session CourtPanaji u/s 29 of DV Act against JMFC Court Noticedated 18th March 2019. She further told that GoaHouse can be gifted to her so as to be in safecustody and after defeating Devsurabhee in theD.V. Case she will gift Goa House/property back tohim to be given equally to Devsurabhee and Urvyas per family Settlement of Yaduvanshis Believing Vandana Sodhi as a concernedwife, and as a concerned mother, and the legaladvice given by her, he agreed to make a trip toGoa to file Session Appeal u/s 29 of DV Act whichwas done on 16th April, 2019. Vandana got GoaHouse gifted to her on 18th /19th April 2019. AfterGift Deed was made on 19th April, 2019 at VascoSub-Registrar, when they reached near DabolimAirport, on way to Martin Corner, Benaulim forlunch, Sandeep Sumbly rang up on Vandana Sodhimobile number to enquire whether Gift Deed wasdone. He overheard their conversations as he wasdriving his friend’s car and Vandana was sitting byhis side. But immediately after gifting Goaproperty, Vandana Sodhi told him on 21st April2019 morning that she will not stop meetingSandeep Sumbly. Later when he came to knowthat Session Appeal u/s 29 of DV Act wasdismissed, with a direction to him to appear beforeJMFC Panaji in DV Case because Appeal does notlie on issue of Court Notice, He felt huge betrayal

Page 11 of 22

by his wife Vandana Sodhi and knew that he wasunscrupulously cheated/conned by Vandana Sodhiand her paramour Sandeep Sumbly.The cheating/Con game of Vandana Sodhi &Sandeep Sumbly got confirmed by the followingSMS message dated 19.6 2019 to Devsurabhee bySandeep Sumbly:-

"Hi Surabhi.“ I am Sandeep and want to help you in

your case against your father. What will be agood time to speak to you. Rgds, Sandeep"Obviously this message refers to the DV Act Casefiled by Devsurabhee against the complainant.

Both Vandana Sodhi and Sandeep Sumblyhave acted in Criminal Conspiracy and thisCriminal Conspiracy got further confirmed whenVandana Sodhi branded his Goa property entirelyin her name as MADISON RESIDENCESregistered vide Regn. No. PSA/REG/GGN/LI-Ggn-X/0197431 dated 12th July, 2019 of LabourDepartment, Government of Haryana in name ofVandana D/o Sh. A.S. Yadav. Sachin Yadav is inthe Manager of ‘MADISON RESIDENCES, whobecame another conspirator of Vandana Sodhiagainst him and her biological daughters. It is noteworthy that in the said Registration Document,Vandana does not use his name as a husband,(who owned the Property) but uses name of herfather’s and also her father address. When thecomplainant objected to Registration and misuse ofhis Goa property by Vandana Sodhi and SachinYadav, Vandana Sodhi beat him up with Chappalsand twisted his injured arm on 24th July 2019morning, then packed his clothes in small suitcase& threw him out of her rented flat B-3602, DLFCrest, Sector-54, Gurugram, stating that “you arenot my choice.” “see you in court.”. Immediatelyafter beating up him for daring to open his mouthagainst conversion of his Goa Property as‘Madison Residences at 8.29 am she sent

Page 12 of 22

following message on Whats App"No procedure to be done on your

shoulder except when I am present" (08:29AM)”.

Fearing from her and also to save herlife/reputation and to recover his Goa Property, hedid not get MLC done but his treatment continuedtill Jan 2020 at the time of filing his Divorce. He was never in favour of conversion andmonetisation of his Goa House/Property as‘MADISON RESIDENCES’ and he never handedover possession of his Goa House to VandanaSodhi and Sandeep Sumbly till date his GoaProperty is in his possession. Even though theywere forcing him and threatening him continuouslyfrom July, 2019 onwards till date on variousoccasions to sell it to Vandana Sodhi and handover possession, He never allowed ‘MadisonResidences’ to be operated in his Goa House. Leftwith no option, but to save life of his daughter andhimself, He finally left Vandana’s house, without hisbelongings, and saved his life in November, 2019.He asked about his belongings including officialpapers, which she flatly refuses to give till date.

During this period of Nov/Dec, 2019 andJanuary, 2020 the Criminal Conspiracy of VandanaSodhi and Sandeep Sumbly deepened & theyshowed their true colours and further threateningme as follows:

On 30th Dec, 2019 Vandana Sodhiexpressed that he should send her floweron New Year. So on 31st January,2019, he sent her flowers (Yellow LiliesBouquet) though his driver Mr. NippuKumar Singh and asked them to give inthe hands of Vandana Sodhi. NippuKumar Singh (Driver) reached residenceof Vandana Sodhi at 02:45 PM at B-3602, DLF ‘The CREST’, Sector-54,Gurugram. But it was revealed that

Page 13 of 22

Vandana Sodhi was not present athome, However, she was with SandeepSumbly.

The threats & loss statement got magnifiedinto more words by her was Appended on 2nd /3rd

January, 2020 when Vandana Sodhi offered to payRs. 20 Lacs per years for next 5 years and askedto execute the sale deed of Goa Property. FinallyAditi Sodhi Daugther of Vandana Sodhi was filed afalse complaint against him on 7th January, 2020 toHon’ble CM/LG Delhi to defame him officially,when he refused to buckle under their pressure.On 1st July 2020, he filed a Defamation Case inDelhi High Court where Aditi Sodhi, Vandana Sodhiand Sandeep Sumbly are Defendant.

He filed Divorce Case 60/2020 on 22nd

January, 2020 against Vandana Sodhi in PatialaHouse Court Delhi. He asked Vandana Sodhi toreturn his Goa House and belongings on 31st

January, 2020 and she adamantly refused. Leftwith no option, he took legal recourse throughCourts/Police Station. She later on the threatenedof Vandana Sodhi through false complaint on 21st

June, 2020 before Women Police Station, Sector-51, Gurugram, 4th /5th July 2020, 11th Sep, 2020etc. continued though impersonation etc.

Accused Vandana Sodhi & SandeepSumbly have seen that the Honey trap marriagedated 14th July, 2018 between Vandana Sodhi andhim has not led to full benefits and that since hehas been living separately (since last 1 year) in hisofficial residence 14/5, Tilak Marg, New Delhi, theironly way to continue their crime against me throughtheir created “Renu” his further honey trap through“Renu”. He further stated that there is no concept ofmarriage in the mind of Vandana Sodhi & SandeepSumbly. For them this marriage to me is a cover-up of their crime and they want to keep thismarriage legal cover endlessly. This is so because

Page 14 of 22

he has seen Vandana Sodhi, using Law knowledgeto commit crime and prepare her escape route rightbefore the eyes of Law and keeps on committingcrime shamelessly and unscrupulously within thelegal system. Now she has a partner in crime whois accused No. 2, who has left his wife andchildren, who moves like a shadow with her and isthe arms and legs of her criminal planning. Duringinvestigation, section 406 and 389 IPC have beenadded in case.

It is submitted that during the course ofinvestigation notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C has given to thecomplainant to provide the ownership/bill ofpurchase of articles, manner of entrustment ofarticles and misappropriation of articles, whetherhe demanded for returning the articles from theaccused and response of accused. In responseof notice complainant has filed written reply statingthat the house hold articles were purchased by hisfirst wife out of their income at various times ondifferent dates. However, he has no bill/receipts ofpurchase. The said articles were being used byhim at his Govt. Flat No. 14/5, Tilak Marg beforethe marriage with Vandana Sodhi from 2017 to 2nd

June 2019. On 3rd June 2019 the house holditems were shifted by Truck No. DL1V5076 videpermission No. 470/50-DCP/T-NDR dated03.06.2019 given by DCP traffic. The complainantproduced the copy of permission of abovementioned truck and photographs of truck andarticles in house No. 3092, Sector 46, Gurgaonafter unloading. He further stated that jewellerywas also given to Ms Vandana Sodhi on 03 rd June2019 to keep in safe custody. Thereafter, withouthis consent she taken away said articles fromH.No. 3092, Sector-46, Gurugram to rented flat atB-3602, DLD Crest Sector 54, Gurugram.Thereafter, she again taken away at her ownhouse at H.No. 3092, Sector-46, Gurugram. He

Page 15 of 22

further stated that he had demanded his jewelleryand house hold articles of his Ist wife Smriteeseveral times vide emails/ What’s App messagesfrom 23rd Nov 2019 to 27th December 2019. (Heproduced the proof of email 23rd Nov 2019, 1st

December 2019, 2nd December 2019) MsVandana Sodhi replied on 2nd December by emailthat she will be shifting on 3rd /4th Jan 2020alongwith the house hold things and asked himto send packers on 3rd Jan 2019, but she refusedlater on and demanded to convert the Gift Deedinto sale Deed of Goa Property on 3rd Jan 2020 byWhat’s App messages at 15.28 Hrs. He hadalso reminded her on 14th December 2019 Inresponse to his What’s App message she sentemail to him on 14.12.2019 that “ I also assureyou that I will give my Goa house to Urvy andDevsurabhee upon my natural death. I will alsogive them more depending of how you behaveme. I will also gift both of them gold duringtheir weddings”. He further reminded by What’sapp message dated 20/12/2019 but she changedher stand again despite promise. On 25.12.2019,at 10:44AM she had indicated to send his fewhouse hold articles like beds, utensils, study tableand dining table but she did not send till date. On26.12.2019 at 3,45PM, he again sent a What’s Appmessage to Vandana Sodhi that “ waiting forreply of indicating date of shifting to my TilakMarg residence” at that time she was residing inrented house at B-3602, DLF Crest, Sector-54Gurugram. which had taken rented this house for11 Month lease which was ending on 19th April2020. She extended her rent lease till 2nd

September 2020 and vacated the apartment andwent back to her house i.e. 3092, Sector-46,Gurgaon, HR with Sandeep Sumbly alongwith allhis gold, valuables and house hold articles. Shehas never come back to Tilak Marg residencedespite her promise to shift by 3rd/4th Jan 2020

Page 16 of 22

alongwith all my listed items.

It is further submitted that Notice to producethe mobile phone instrument Redmi Note -2, SIMbearing mobile No. 9315563353, mobile phoneinstrument I-phone -6 and belongings anddocuments of the complainant on 19.12.2020, butshe did not produce the same, However, she sendreply through email that Instrument Mobile phoneRedmi Note -2 is handed over to her counsel,SIM bearing mobile number 9315563353 whichwas used said mobile phone w.e.f 31.12.2019 to02.03.2020 was misplaced but she did notproduce any lost report or any proof in this regard.She further stated that alleged mobile I-phone -6 isnot her possession. In regards of belongings and documents ofthe complainant, she stated that Maruti CarCelereo bearing registration No. GA-06E3988 isparked outside DLF Crest building Gurugram andshe asked to Raajiv Yadhuvanshi to take the carbut he did not do so. She denied to have any Goldand Silver Jewellery and official laptop of thecomplainant. She agreed to handed over the bankdocuments, passport, piano, Golf set, Cloths shoesetc to the complainant. In regards of house holditems, i.e Television, Music System, WashingMachine, Dish Washing Mashine Furniture items,Kitchen Gas stove, Three Air conditioners, allutensils and crockery items, she stated that it wasjoint use of husband and wife constitutes herIstridhan. However she did not produce anybill/invoice of said articles. During investigation it has been revealedthat the actual owner of the Goa property was MrsSmritee, Ist wife of the complainant the same wasgifted to complainant vide gift deed dated 27th

September 2016 in terms deed of family settlementdeed dated 23rd September 2016. Later on thisproperty was gifted to Mrs Vandana Sodhi by the

Page 17 of 22

complainant vide gift deed dated 18th April 2019. In regards the threatening What’s app calldated 31.05.2020, made by Sandeep Sumbly tocomplainant from Dheeraj’s mobile phone could notbe verified as it was a What’s App call andcomplainant has no recording of this call. It is further submitted that on 17.12.2020IIIrd Notice u/s 41A Cr.P.C also sent to accusedNo.2 i.e. Sandeep Sumbly to join the investigationon 19.12.2020 as the alleged SIM is registered inhis name but he did not join the investigation.However, he send reply stating that she is out ofcity and seeks 4-5 days. He deliberately avoidingfor joining the investigation. It is further submitted that co-accusednamely Sandeep Sumbly has moved anticipatorybail before the Hon’ble ASJ Court, Patiala HouseCourt and the same was dismissed on 28.12.2020.Thereafter, raid were conducted to arrest the co-accused Sandeep Sumbly at his residence i.e. FlatNo. I-106, IInd floor, Ivory Block, Emralled Hills,Sector-65, Gurugram but his residence foundlocked. Thereafter, Non Bailable warrants againstaccused Sandeep Sumbly has been taken andsearch has been made but he could not bearrested so far. Statement of servants of the complainantnamely Nipu Kumar and Ram Ashish have beenrecorded, who stated that, accused SandeepSumbly used to visit at the resident of VandanaSodhi and behaved like husband and wife. MrNipu Kumar stated that on 27 November 2019,accused Sandeep Sumbly took away thebelongings of the complainant from H. No. 3092,Sector-46, Gurugram at the instance of VandanaSodhi. A notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C sent to accused VandanaSodhi for providing the information and documentsbut she did not produce the same. However, shesent reply though email and seeks 14-15 days for

Page 18 of 22

providing the same. Custodial interrogation of accused is

required for the following grounds:- 1. Alleged SIM bearing mobile number9315563353 is to be recovered from the instanceof Vandana Sodhi. As her earlier reply dated25.08.2020, she stated that the this SIM washanded over to Mr. Raajiv Yadhuvanshi in themonth of June 2019. However, as per CDRrecord the SIM was used by Ms Vandana Sodhiw.e.f. 31.12.19 to 27.03.20. and now she sendreply stated that “ I don’t have possession ofthis SIM as it was misplaced” 2.Instrument mobile phone Redmi Lite 2 bearingIEMI Nos. 860980041153034 &860980041153040, which was earlier used withSIM bearing number 9315563353 from 31.12.19 to27.03.20 and is now being used with the SIM No.9971449706 owned by Vandana Sodhi is to berecovered. 3. Instrument iphone-6 bearing IMEI number356960061304890 in which alleged SIM havingmobile number 9315563353 had been used forsending the What’s App messages to thecomplainant by impersonated as Renu from NNSMedia group from 30th March 2020 to 8th July 2020.As CEO NNS Media group clearly stated thatphone number 9315563353 is not belongs to NNSand no employee namely Renu is not working inNNS Media Group. 4. Identity of so called Renu to be established atthe instance of accused Vandana Sodhi andmotive behind for sending the messages to thecomplainant to be investigated from so calledRenu.5. Belongings of Mr. Raajiv Yadhuvanshi are to berecovered at the instance of Ms Vandana Sodhiregarding which notice was given to her and shedenied having possession of Gold Jewelry articlesi.e. 10 Necklace, 24 Bangels, 2 Mangalsutra and

Page 19 of 22

20 Tots Total weight about 1.5 kilograms, Silverjewlleryworth Rs 5 Lac and official Laptop of thecomplainant and official papers. As she sent anemail to the complainant on14.12.2019 that “ Ialso assure you that I will give my Goa houseto Urvy and Devsurabhee upon my naturaldeath. I will also give them more depending ofhow you behave me. I will also gift both ofthem gold during their weddings”. Thereafter,on 3rd Jan 2020, she sent what’s app message tothe complainant that “ Since you seems to befinancially stressed I can give you Rs 20 Lacevery year for the next 5 years…. This can belegally shown as a sales considerationtowards the Goa House gifted by you… Wecan have a written agreement to that effect…This should ease your financial worries”. 6. Co-accused Sandeep Sumbly yet to bearrested at the instance of accused Vandana Sodhi.7. Ms. Vandana Sodhi, may escape and run awayfrom India and hide in her flat Abu-Dhabi/Dubai andevade the investigation....”

5. With respect to the claim of the Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused

qua ownership proof not having been furnished by the nonapplicant/complainant

for the recovery of articles, proof of the same is not necessary at this initial stage

of consideration of the anticipatory bail application. Merely because the non

applicant/complainant has not furnished the bills pertaining to the gold jewellery

in question, it cannot be presumed that there was no such gold jewellery, and the

allegation of the nonapplicant/complainant qua the entrustment of same to the

applicant/accused and nonreturn thereof, cannot be ignored at this stage. A

thorough investigation is required to verify the said fact. Further, it was not

denied by the Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused during the course of the

arguments, that some of the articles of the nonapplicant/complainant, including

Page 20 of 22

the said 'Celerio' car, are lying in the erstwhile matrimonial house of the parties.

However, the claim of the applicant/accused is that the nonapplicant/complainant

had brought them there himself, and has deliberately not taken the same back, to

make it a case for an offence under section 406 IPC. The rival contentions in this

regard can be verified only after a detailed investigation.

6. Furthermore, the hatching of a conspiracy to commit an offence is,

as per section 120B IPC, in itself an offence, even if no overt act is committed by

the applicant/accused. Therefore, even if for argument's sake, it is presumed that

there was no criminality in the overt act of the aforesaid Renu qua the

conversations alleged by the complainant, still, if the said conversations were a

part of a conspiracy to implicate the complainant in a false case under the POCSO

Act, it would in itself be an offence, and custodial interrogation may be required

to ascertain whether the applicant/accused was a part of the conspiracy, if any.

The aforesaid contradictory stands of the applicant/accused with respect to the

SIM card, through which the said Renu was communicating with the non

applicant/complainant, and the said SIM card having been used in the Redmi

mobile handset of the applicant/accused, require the role of the applicant/accused

to be investigated thoroughly.

7. The judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused do

not help the case of the applicant/accused for the grant of the anticipatory bail, due

to the different facts and circumstances in this case.

8. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, including

the nature of the allegations levelled, the investigation conducted so far, the fact

that the anticipatory bail of coaccused Sandeep Sumbly, whose role was on a

similar or lesser footing than the applicant/accused, has been rejected, in view of

the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid reply of the IO and the submissions of the

Ld. Addl. PP for State and the facts that there is seldom any direct evidence of

Page 21 of 22

conspiracy & the conspiracy, if any, needs to be unearthed and that the articles

allegedly entrusted by the complainant to the applicant/accused are yet to be

recovered, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for grant of

anticipatory bail to the applicant/accused. Accordingly the anticipatory bail

application is dismissed. However it is made clear that merely because the

anticipatory bail application has been dismissed, the same will not be an excuse

for the investigating agency to arrest the applicant on that basis, and it will do so

only if it is essential as per law and with specific reasons to be recorded.

Application is accordingly disposed of. Dasti to all concerned.

9. Bail application file be consigned to Record Room.

(Ashutosh Kumar) ASJ01/Special Court POCSO

NDD/PHC/ND/07.01.2021/D

Page 22 of 22

Bail Application no.07/2021State vs. Pawan Gupta

FIR No.63/2017PS: Mandir Marg

07.01.2021

Present : Sh. Manoj Mishra, Counsel for applicant/accused,through VC.Sh. Dharam Chand, Addl. PP for State, through VC.

Present is an application for grant of bail moved on

behalf of applicant/accused Pawan Gupta, received by

assignment from the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge,

Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

At request, put up for consideration on this

application on 08.01.2021.

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

07.01.2021

It is certified that Video Conferencing was held in anuninterrupted manner and during the proceedings, no objections were raisedby either of the parties regarding the connectivity i.e. audio or visualquality.

Reader/07.01.2021


FIR No.58/2017PS: Chanakya Puri

08.01.2021

Present : Sh. Manoj Mishra, Counsel for applicant/accused,through VC.

Sh. Dharam Chand, Addl. PP for State, through VC.


behalf of applicant/accused Pawan Gupta.

It is submitted in the application that the petitioner

was acquitted in another false and frivolous FIR no.23500/2016

vide order dated 14.10.2019 passed by Hon'ble court of Ms.

Aakansha Vyas, MM-5 (East), Karkardooma Court, Delhi, and in

the aforesaid FIR, the same vehicle in question were involved,

hence on this ground, the petitioner is entitled for bail. There is

no documentary evidence collected by the IO in respect of the

possession of the accused persons in the said premises. Even

the landlord/owner of the premises has also not supported the

prosecution case in respect of possession of the said premises by

any of the petitioners and other accused persons.

It is further submitted that the petitioner is the only

bread earner of his family consisting of wife, two children aged

about 2 years and 4 years and two unmarried sisters, aged

about 14 years and 20 years. Presently, the wife of the petitioner

was pregnant for 3 months and petitioner regularly taken his

wife for medical treatment and the petitioner also wants to

marry his sister. From the last 6 months, the petitioner was also

unable to pay the school fees of the children. The petitioner has

taken the loan of Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- from Muthoot

Finance after gold jewellery of his wife, sister etc. and hence,

the petitioner is necessary for paying the said loan amount.

I have heard ld. Counsel for accused / applicant as

well as ld. Addl. PP for State.

Ld. Counsel for accused has contended that the

accused is already on interim bail and during the interim bail, he

has never misused the liberty granted to him. He has further

contended that the accused is praying for the mercy of the court

as the accused has been in custody for a very long time. He has

further contended that the accused has a family to support and

wife of the accused is pregnant. He has further contended that

accused has been falsely implicated in this case.

Per contra, ld. Addl. PP has contended that the

accused alongwith his associates had committed a spate of

dacoities by adoption a similar modus operandi. He has further

contended that when the accused was released on interim bail,

he had committed a robbery. He has further contended that

though the accused may not have misused the liberty but merely

because he is on interim bail, his bail cannot be confirmed

especially in view of the evidence recorded before the court

where the complainant had not only identified the accused but

had also assigned to the role which the accused had played in

the robbery.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused

the record very carefully.

First of all, interim bails and regular bails are

granted on distinct grounds. An interim bail is granted due to

some emergent situations so that the accused, who is in custody,

may be released to take care of those situations. Just because

the accused is on interim bail, it cannot be a ground for

regularizing that bail.

It is also to be seen that there are two cases pending

against the accused in this court which are pertaining to dacoity

committed by a gang by adopting a similar modus operandi and

accused had played an active role in that dacoity. Evidence to

that effect has also come before the court where the

complainant had also identified the accused. However, at this

stage, the veracity of evidence and merits of the evidence

cannot be decided but at the same time, the evidence has to be

kept in mind while deciding the bail application. Considering the

overall facts and circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for

grant of bail. The application at hand is accordingly dismissed.

Order be uploaded on the website of Delhi District Court.


08.01.2021


Reader/08.01.2021


FIR No.63/2017PS: Mandir Marg

08.01.2021

Present : Sh. Manoj Mishra, Counsel for applicant/accused,through VC.




It is submitted in the application that the petitioner

was acquitted in another false and frivolous FIR no.23500/2016

vide order dated 14.10.2019 passed by Hon'ble court of Ms.

Aakansha Vyas, MM-5 (East), Karkardooma Court, Delhi, and in

the aforesaid FIR, the same vehicle in question were involved,

hence on this ground, the petitioner is entitled for bail. There is

no documentary evidence collected by the IO in respect of the

possession of the accused persons in the said premises. Even

the landlord/owner of the premises has also not supported the

prosecution case in respect of possession of the said premises by

any of the petitioners and other accused persons.

It is further submitted that the petitioner is the only

bread earner of his family consisting of wife, two children aged

about 2 years and 4 years and two unmarried sisters, aged

about 14 years and 20 years. Presently, the wife of the petitioner

was pregnant for 3 months and petitioner regularly taken his

wife for medical treatment and the petitioner also wants to

marry his sister. From the last 6 months, the petitioner was also

unable to pay the school fees of the children. The petitioner has

taken the loan of Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- from Muthoot

Finance after gold jewellery of his wife, sister etc. and hence,

the petitioner is necessary for paying the said loan amount.

I have heard ld. Counsel for accused / applicant as

well as ld. Addl. PP for State.

Ld. Counsel for accused has contended that the

accused is already on interim bail and during the interim bail, he

has never misused the liberty granted to him. He has further

contended that the accused is praying for the mercy of the court

as the accused has been in custody for a very long time. He has

further contended that the accused has a family to support and

wife of the accused is pregnant. He has further contended that

accused has been falsely implicated in this case.

Per contra, ld. Addl. PP has contended that the

accused alongwith his associates had committed a spate of

dacoities by adoption a similar modus operandi. He has further

contended that when the accused was released on interim bail,

he had committed a robbery. He has further contended that

though the accused may not have misused the liberty but merely

because he is on interim bail, his bail cannot be confirmed

especially in view of the evidence recorded before the court

where the complainant had not only identified the accused but

had also assigned to the role which the accused had played in

the robbery.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused

the record very carefully.

First of all, interim bails and regular bails are

granted on distinct grounds. An interim bail is granted due to

some emergent situations so that the accused, who is in custody,

may be released to take care of those situations. Just because

the accused is on interim bail, it cannot be a ground for

regularizing that bail.

It is also to be seen that there are two cases pending

against the accused in this court which are pertaining to dacoity

committed by a gang by adopting a similar modus operandi and

accused had played an active role in that dacoity. Evidence to

that effect has also come before the court where the

complainant had also identified the accused. However, at this

stage, the veracity of evidence and merits of the evidence

cannot be decided but at the same time, the evidence has to be

kept in mind while deciding the bail application. Considering the

overall facts and circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for

grant of bail. The application at hand is accordingly dismissed.

Order be uploaded on the website of Delhi District Court.


08.01.2021


Reader/08.01.2021

Bail ApplicationState vs. Kuldeep @ Sachin Mann

FIR No.207/2019U/s 3&4 MCOCA

PS: Special Cell, New Delhi

08.01.2021

Present : Sh. Rishipal, Counsel for applicant/accused Kuldeep@ Sachin @ Mann, through VC.


Present is an application for seeking grant of interim

bail for a period of two months filed on behalf of

applicant/accused Kuldeep @ Sachin Mann. It is submitted that

the father of the applicant has been suffering from serious

ailment of Cancer and on 04.01.2021 the doctor has advised him

for his immediate admission in hospital for further management

and suggested for medical surgery as soon as possible. The

applicant is the only son of in the family and as his father is

seriously ill and unable to arrange funds for his medical

treatment, he seeks grant of interim bail for a period of two

months.

Certain additional documents also received through

E-mail on behalf of the applicant.

Verification report be called from the IO regarding

the illness of the father of the applicant/accused for the next

date of hearing.

At request, renotify for arguments on the bail



08.01.2021


Reader/08.01.2021


FIR No.58/2017PS: Chanakya Puri

07.01.2021

Present : Sh. Manoj Mishra, Counsel for applicant/accused,through VC.Sh. Dharam Chand, Addl. PP for State, through VC.



At request, renotify for consideration on this



07.01.2021


Reader/07.01.2021

FIR No. 226/2020 PS Special Cell, Lodhi Road U/s 21/29 ...

Documents

Transcript of FIR No. 226/2020 PS Special Cell, Lodhi Road U/s 21/29 ...