Sh Satish Aggarwala, Ld. SPP for CBN through V

SC No. 396/18CBN Vs Harish Chander & Anr.

20.02.2021

Present: Sh Satish Aggarwala, Ld. SPP for CBN through VC.

Sh S S Das, Ld. counsel for accused/applicant Arvind Kumar.

Ld. counsel for accused Arvind Kumar submitted that this is an

application to allow the accused to have eye surgery from hospital either

private or govt. Ld. counsel submits that condition of both the eyes are

deteriorating and immediate surgery is required. Ld. counsel submits that as

per the medical report received from jail today itself, the accused is found to be

suffering from decreased vision in right eye with cataract and has been advised

surgery for the same. Ld. Counsel submits that therefore jail superintendent is

directed to take the accused for surgery in some reputed private hospital or

govt hospital.

Ld. SPP submits that he has no objection if the accused be

provided medical treatment in the reputed govt. hospital.

Heard. As per the medical report dated 19.02.2021 regarding

medical status of accused, it is categorically mentioned that “at present inmate

patient is suffering from decreased of vision in right eye with cataract and has

been advised surgery for the same”. The medical report categorically suggest that

accused requires the surgery, therefore, jail superintendent is directed to take

the accused Arvind Kumar to RP Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, AIIMS for

conducting the required treatment.

Application stands disposed of.

Copy of the order be sent to jail superintendent as well as

concerned DIG (Prison) to ensure the compliance of the order forthwith.

Copy of this order be also sent to Director/Incharge of RP Centre

for Ophthalmic Sciences, AIIMS.

Copy of the order be given dasti as well as sent to accused Arvind

Kumar in jail. Copy of the order be uploaded on the website of New Delhi

District.

(Ajay Kumar Jain) Spl. Judge, NDPS/N. Delhi/20.02.2021

SC No. 109/20Case No. VIII/40/DZU/2019U/s 8/22/23/29 NDPS Act NCB Vs Naveen Kapoor & Ors.

20.02.2021

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

Sh A K Sahu, Ld. LAC for accused/applicant Naveen Kapoor.

At request, list this application for reply and arguments on

03.03.2021.

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

District.

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

20.02.2021

FIR No. 04/15PS Spl Cell U/s: 21/29 NDPS Act State Vs Maneesh M

20.02.2021

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

VC.

Sh Vineet Malhotra, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused

Maneesh M through VC.

Vide separate order, the bail application of the accused

Maneesh M stands dismissed.

The application is disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the order be given dasti to parties. Copy of this order

be also sent to accused Maneesh M in Central Prison & Correctional Home,

Thiruvananthapuram jail.


District.


20.02.2021

SC No. 29/18FIR No. 04/15PS Spl Cell U/s: 21/29 NDPS Act State Vs Maneesh M

20.02.2021ORDER

Vide this order, I shall decide the bail application of accused Maneesh

M. This application for bail is received from accused Maneesh M through

post from Central Prison & Correctional Home, Thiruvananthapuram jail.

The brief facts of case are that on 13.01.2015, acting on a secret

information, officials of Special Cell have apprehended two persons namely

Ajay B. and Siddeekh. S. On pursuant of narcotics drug, a case FIR No.

04/2015 dated 13.01.2015 U/s 21/29 NDPS Act, PS Special Cell, Lodhi

Colony, New Delhi was registered and both the said persons were arrested.

During interrogation, both the accused persons disclosed that on the

direction of their handler/present applicant Maneesh M. they had gone to

Srinagar to receive a consignment of heroin. After analysis of mobile

number recovered and disclosed by accused persons, some of the

international mobile numbers were found to be in contact with Maneesh M.

After investigation, it was revealed that mobile numbers 8156805060 and

9846888795 were used by applicant Maneesh M at the time of of

commission of crime. They had gone to Srinagar, J & K on the direction of

their handler and associate Maneesh who also works for Shafi and mostly

they get the directions from one 'Shafi' through Manish. It is Manish who

pays them for their smuggling work. They had brought this consignment of

drug from Srinagar from one Kashmiri Lady. Maneesh provided them

financial help also for this trip and paid part payment of consignment.

During investigation, the applicant/accused has evaded his arrest.

CDR of mobile phone number of accused Maneesh showed his

contacts/links with arrested accused persons namely Ajay B. and Siddeekh

2

S. The present applicant/accused was declared proclaimed offender by the

Court. Other two accused persons Ajay B. and Siddeekh S. confessed before

the Court that they were sent by Maneesh M to collect recovered heroin

from J & K. Both of them pleaded guilty before the Court and were

sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment by the Court.

Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused submitted that accused has been

falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of disclosure

statements of coaccused. There was no direct link of the applicant with the

alleged drug trafficking. No incriminating substance was recovered by the

IO during interrogation. Ld. Counsel submits that co accused when

apprehended had not named the present accused however the name of

present accused has surfaced in the supplementary statement. It is

mentioned in the said statement that some mobile numbers alleged to be

used by Maneesh M and by using those mobile numbers, accused Maneesh

contacted co accused. Co accused Ajay stated that three mobile numbers

saved by him in his contact list as Maneesh, my boss Maneesh and my boss

Maneesh 1. The numbers are 8156805060, 9645888795 & 9645122180.

Similarly the co accused Siddeekh also disclosed the very same numbers and

further disclosed that they had contacted accused Maneesh on mobile no.

9645888795. Ld. Counsel submits that IO in the reply to the bail application

stated that accused also involved in a case of narcotic at Kuwait but failed to

provided the particulars of said case. The co accused have not given the

physical description of present accused and accused had spent already 03

years in custody and evidence is not going to be started soon. Ld. Counsel

submits that there is no recovery from present accused. Hence, he be

released on bail.

Ld. Additional PP has strongly opposed the bail application on the

ground that the recovery in the present case was of commercial quantity i.e.

10.27 kgs of heroin. Both accused have collectively stated in their

statements that they were working for the present applicant. The applicant

3

is the main handler of this drug syndicate. Earlier, the accused was

absconding and he was even declared proclaimed offender. Even in their

bail applications, the coaccused have specifically named the present

applicant therein stating that he was the person who had allured them to

work for him in the trafficking of drugs. Ld. Addl. PP submits that the

applicant Maneesh M applied for anticipatory bail before the Hon'ble High

Court of Delhi and Kerala, however, both the applications were dismissed

on merits. Ld. Addl. PP submits that the applicant was found to be involved

in six other criminal cases. It was also found during investigation that

accused Maneesh M was arrested in 2014 in Kuwait for illegally

transporting or supplying illegal liquor and lodged in jail and in jail, he

came in contact with Shaffi and entered into a conspiracy with him to

smuggle drugs from India to Kuwait and other gulf countries. Ld. Addl. PP

submits that analysis of CDR mobiles used by accused Maneesh, following

facts has come as under: Mobile numbers 9846888795 and 8156805060

having almost same contacts in the period in question; mobile numbers

9846888795 and 8156805060 having four common IMEI; accused Maneesh

M and convicted accused Ajay B and Siddeekh S disclosed that Maneesh M

had given one moible phone and SIM card to convicted accused persons.

The same mobile phone was recovered from the possession of accused

Siddeekh S at the time of arrest. Accused Maneesh M used mobile numbers

9846888795 and 8156805060 in that recovered mobile phone; CDRs of the

mobile numbers 9846888795, 9947777965 and 8156805060 corroborates

with the accused Maneesh M disclosure statements.

Ld. Addl. PP submits that from the analysis, it is revealed that these

mobile numbers are used by accused Maneesh. The statement of PW

Shajiman proves that mobile no. 9846888795 was used by accused Maneesh

M; statement of PW Nithin Raveendran and Ameer Kappukulangara Rajan

proves that accused Maneesh was lodged in Kuwait jail knowing one person

4

Shaffi; the mobile numbers found to be saved in contact list of accused Ajay

B suggesting their connection and involvement; IMEI of mobile phone

recovered from Siddeekh S also used in the mobile no. 9846888795 proves

that said mobile phone was used by accused Maneesh M; the CDR of mobile

phone recovered from possession of convicted accused Ajay B and Siddeekh

S proved their links with accused Maneesh M; CDR of mobile phone

recovered from the possession of accused Ajay B and used by accused

Maneesh M had common international contacts/links. Accused Maneesh in

conspiracy with accused operate drug cartel in India. The bail application of

this accused was dismissed by this court vide order dated 09.03.2018. The

accused is also found involved in other cases i.e. Case Crime No. 71/15 u/s

27 Arms Act at Janmaithri PS, Kerala; Case Crime No. 71/15 u/s

143/147/149/308/34 IPC dated 14.01.2015 at PS Kerala; Case Crime No.

1101/11 u/s 323/324/326/427/34 IPC PS Kerala; Case Crime No. 886/17

u/s 307/506/34 IPC PS Kerala; Case Crime No. 55/17 u/s 408/420 IPC PS

Gundoor, Andhra Pradesh. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had dismissed

the regular bail application through detailed order dated 19.11.2018. No

fresh ground made out for release of accused on bail. There is a definite bar

u/s 37 NDPS Act over release of accused on bail as there is a recovery of

commercial quantity of contraband in this case and mere incarceration is

no ground to release the accused on bail.

Heard. Record perused.

Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673,

the Court while taking note of Section 37 of the Act held that "negation of

bail is the rule and its grant an exception under Section 37 of the Act and

for granting the bail the Court must, on the basis of the record produced

before it, be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that

the accused is not guilty of the offences with which he is charged and

further that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail".

5

The position stands reiterated in Sami Ullaha v. Superintendent,

Narcotic Central Bureau, (2008) 16 SCC and Union of India v. Rattan Mallik

alias Habul, (2009) 2 SCC 624 wherein the Apex Court further clarified that

when a prosecution/conviction is for an offence under a special statute and

that statute contains specific provisions for dealing with matters arising

thereunder, including an application for grant of bail, such provisions

cannot be ignored while dealing with such an application and observed

that :

"9. The broad principles which should weigh with the Court ingranting bail in a nonbailable offence have been enumerated in acatena of decisions of this Court and, therefore, for the sake ofbrevity, we do not propose to reiterate the same. However, when aprosecution/conviction is for offence(s) under a special statute andthat statute contains specific provisions for dealing with mattersarising thereunder, including an application for grant of bail, theseprovisions cannot be ignored while dealing with such anapplication."

Apex Court in case titled State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh Crl.

Appeal No. 154157/2020 dated 24.01.2020 observed as under:

18. The jurisdiction of the Court to grant bail is circumscribed bythe provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It can be granted incase there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is notguilty of such offence, and that he is not likely to commit anyoffence while on bail. It is the mandate of the legislature which isrequired to be followed. At this juncture, a reference to Section 37of the Act is apposite. That provision makes the offences under theAct cognizable and nonbailable. It reads thus:

“37. Offences to be cognizable and nonbailable.—(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),—

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall becognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offencesunder section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also foroffences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on

6

bail or on his own bond unless—

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity tooppose the application for such release, and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, thecourt is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds forbelieving that he is not guilty of such offence and that he isnot likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) ofsubsection (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Codeof Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law forthe time being in force on granting of bail.” (emphasis supplied)

19. This Court has laid down broad parameters to be followedwhile considering the application for bail moved by the accusedinvolved in offences under NDPS Act. In Union of India Vs. RamSamujh and Ors. 1999(9) SCC 429, it has been elaborated asunder:

“7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislativemandate is required to be adhered to and followed. It shouldbe borne in mind that in a murder case, the accused commitsmurder of one or two persons, while those persons who aredealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing deathor in inflicting deathblow to a number of innocent youngvictims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and adeadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society;even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, theywould continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/ordealing in intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be largestake and illegal profit involved. This Court, dealing with thecontention with regard to punishment under the NDPS Act,has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of suchactivities in Durand Didier v. Chief Secy., Union Territory ofGoa [(1990) 1 SCC 95)] as under:

24. With deep concern, we may point out that theorganised activities of the underworld and theclandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs andpsychotropic substances into this country and illegaltrafficking in such drugs and substances have led todrug addiction among a sizeable section of the public,particularly the adolescents and students of both sexesand the menace has assumed serious and alarmingproportions in the recent years. Therefore, in order to

7

effectively control and eradicate this proliferating andbooming devastating menace, causing deleteriouseffects and deadly impact on the society as a whole,Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisionsby introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifyingmandatory minimum imprisonment and fine.

8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding themarket, Parliament has provided that the person accusedof offences under the NDPS Act should not be released onbail during trial unless the mandatory conditionsprovided in Section 37, namely,

(i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that theaccused is not guilty of such offence; and

(ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while onbail are satisfied. The High Court has not given anyjustifiable reason for not abiding by the aforesaidmandate while ordering the release of the respondentaccused on bail. Instead of attempting to take a holisticview of the harmful socioeconomic consequences andhealth hazards which would accompany traffickingillegally in dangerous drugs, the court shouldimplement the law in the spirit with which Parliament,after due deliberation, has amended.”

20. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of powerto grant bail is not only subject to the limitations containedunder Section 439 of the CrPC, but is also subject to thelimitation placed by Section 37 which commences with nonobstante clause. The operative part of the said section is in thenegative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any personaccused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twinconditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecutionmust be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and thesecond, is that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonablegrounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If eitherof these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bailoperates.

21. The expression “reasonable grounds” means somethingmore than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantialprobable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the

8

alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provisionrequires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficientin themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty ofthe alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems tohave completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 thatin addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, or any otherlaw for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, itsliberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeeduncalled for.

22. We may further like to observe that the learned Single Judgehas failed to record a finding mandated under Section 37 of theNDPS Act which is a sine qua non for granting bail to the accusedunder the NDPS Act.

23. The submission made by learned counsel for the respondentsthat in Crime No. 14/2018, the bail has been granted to the otheraccused persons(A1 to A4), and no steps have been taken by theprosecution to challenge the grant of postarrest bail to the otheraccused persons, is of no consequence for the reason that theconsideration prevailed upon the Court to grant bail to the otheraccused persons will not absolve the act of the accusedrespondent(A5) from the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

It is settled law that at this stage of bail, the court shall not

look of the probative value of material on record and only has to see only

prima facie case. As per mandate of above judgment, the negation of bail is

a rule and grant is an exception. The reasonable grounds required for grant

of bail are more than prima facie ground. In present case, there is a recovery

of commercial quantity of contraband from co accused persons who had

already pleaded guilty and had been sentenced for 10 years of

imprisonment. The accused declared PO however arrested on 06.12.2017.

This accused was found duly connected through the mobile phones

recovered from co accused. The prosecution also recorded the statement of

Shajiman who also proved that the mobile phone no. 9846888795 was used

by accused Maneesh M. There are witnesses who proved that the accused

was also in Kuwait jail. The accused is found to be king pin and also having

criminal antecedents. Merely the fact that there is no recovery from present

9

accused is not a ground to release the accused on bail in present facts and

circumstances. The regular bail application of this accused was already

dismissed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Bail Application No. 1979/2018

dated 19.11.2018. To lift the embargo u/s 37 NDPS Act, the court must be

satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not

guilty of the offences with which he is charged and further that he is not

likely to commit any offence while on bail. It cannot be inferred at this stage

there are reasonable ground to believe that accused is not guilty of the

offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Considering

the material on record and in view of above discussion, I found no ground

to release the applicant/accused Maneesh M on bail. Hence the present

application is dismissed.

It is clarified that nothing in this order shall prejudice the case

on merits.

Application disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the order be given dasti as well as be sent to accused

Maneesh M in Central Prison & Correctional Home, Thiruvananthapuram

jail.

Order be uploaded on Delhi District Courts website.


20.02.2021

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

20.02.2021

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

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

Ashok Kumar Tripathi through VC.

At request, list this application for 22.02.2021.


District.


20.02.2021

Case No. VIII/41/DZU/2020NCB Vs Wahid Ali

20.02.2021

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

Sh Saman Pal Singh and Sh Sandeep Ranjan, Ld. counsels for

applicant/accused Shahajahan PP.

Ld. SPP filed reply however submits that NCB is likely to file

complaint within a week.

Accordingly, at request of Ld. defence counsel, list this

application for 08.03.2021.


District.


20.02.2021

Bail Application No. 292/21FIR No. 18/2021PS IGI Airport, New DelhiU/s 419/420/120B IPC & 12 PP ActJagraj Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

20.02.2021

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

through video conferencing.

Sh. Rohit Tripathi, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused Jagraj

Singh.

Reply filed however Ld. Addl. PP submits that IO is out of

Delhi in some investigation and requested for short adjournment.

Accordingly, at request, list this application on 02.03.2021. In

the meanwhile, interim order to continue. Copy of the order be given dasti.


20.02.2021

NCB Vs. Fernanda Rengal Grageda & Ors.Case No. SC/395/17

20.02.2021

Present: Sh. Rajesh Manchanda, SPP for NCB.

Sh. Y.K. Saxena, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.

Part arguments heard.

Put up for further arguments on 25.02.2021.

Order be uploaded on Delhi District Courts Website.

(Ajay Kumar Jain) Special JudgeNDPS

New Delhi/20.02.2021

NCB Vs. Chinedu Okeluwa SamuelCase No. SC/8567/16

20.02.2021

Present: Sh. Rajesh Manchanda, SPP for NCB.

Sh. J.S. Kushwaha, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused through

VC.

This is an application u/s 439 Cr.PC seeking interim bail

however Ld. Counsel submits that inadvertently he has filed the present

application with the prayer for interim bail instead of regular bail and he

wishes to withdraw the present application with liberty to file fresh

application.

Accordingly, at request, the present application is dismissed as

withdrawn with liberty to file afresh. Application disposed of.

Order be uploaded on Delhi District Courts Website.

(Ajay Kumar Jain) Special JudgeNDPS

New Delhi/20.02.2021

Application no. State vs. Munna Kumar & Ors.

FIR No. 473/2016PS: Vasant Kunj (North)

20.02.2021

Present : Sh. Dharam Chand, Addl. PP for State.

Applicant in person with counsel.

The present is an application for release of previous

surety documents filed by the applicant.

In the application, it is submitted that the applicant

stood surety for accused Pawan Kumar in the above named

matter. At that time, the applicant had filed his property

documents alongwith surety bond. It is further submitted that

the applicant has now submitted FDR to the tune of Rs.40,000/-

in place of property documents. Hence, the present application

praying for release of property documents.

I have seen the NSC submitted by the applicant in

place of property documents.

Considering the submissions made in the

application, the property documents of applicant be released to

him as per rules.

Put up for purpose fixed on date already fixed.

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

20.02.2021

State vs. Ashim @ Hasim @ Hasim BabaFIR No. 78/2018

PS: Spl. Cell, DelhiU/s 3 and 4 MCOC Act.

20.02.2021

Present : Sh. Dharam Chand, Addl. PP for State.

Insp. Rajesh on behalf of ACP Lalit Mohan Negi is

present.

Accused Ashim @ Hasim produced from Central

Jail no. 2, through VC.

Accused Parmeet @ Sonu produced from Rohini Jail

no. 10, through VC.

Sh. M.M Khan, Ld. Counsel for accused Ashim @

Hasim.

Sh. Ghanshyam Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for accused

Parmeet, through VC.

This is an application u/s 21 (2) (b) of the MCOC Act

seeking extension of limitation period of filing of charge sheet.

It is submitted in the application that the present

case has been registered against organized crime syndicate

headed and run by gang leader Satyawan Sehrawat @ Sonu

Dariyapur. The said organized crime syndicate includes Vijay

Sehrawat @ Vijay Lamba, Sanjay Lakra @ Sanjay Mundka,

Naveen Khatri, Parmeet @ Sonu and Ashim @ Hasim @ Hasim

Baba and other. During investigation, four accused persons

namely Satyawan Sehrawat, Vijay Sehrawat, Sanjay lakra and

Naveen Khatri were arrested and charge sheet has already been

filed against them.

During further investigation, two more accused

persons namely Ashim @ Hasim and Parmeet @ Sonu were

arrested. The period of limitation for filing the charge sheet qua

these accused persons is going to over on 24.02.2021.

It is further submitted that so far the statements of

witnesses regarding extortion have been recorded. Evidences

regarding expenses made by members of this gang have been

collected. Some sources of weapons to the crime syndicate have

been traced and some weapons have been recovered.

It is further submitted that investigation of the case

is still going on as certified copies of some of the cases have to

be obtained. Some places i.e. Palampur in HP, JP Nagar in UP

and Mumbai are to be visited to ascertain immovable and

movable properties of the accused persons. Statements of some

more victims of extortion are to be recorded. Further sanction

for prosecution from competent authority is to be obtained.

Hence, the present application for extending the period of

detention and limitation period for filing charge sheet.

Ld. Counsel for accused has contended that by way

of this application, the investigating agency is unnecessarily

delaying the matter. Hence, it is prayed that the application at

hand may be dismissed.

I have considered the rival submissions.

Considering the geographical extent of the activities

of the gang, the kind of investigation which is said to be pending

and the fact that certain aspects for investigation, which has to

be carried out, are outside Delhi at places such as Himachal,

and U.P, extension of time period for investigation is required.

However, at the same time, a blanket extension of 90 days as

sought cannot be granted. Hence, an extension of 30 days from

24.02.2021 is granted for the purposes of investigation and

period of detention of accused is extended accordingly.

Another application for extension of JC remand has

been moved by the IO.

In the application, it is submitted that the

investigation of this case is pending. Some more witnesses are

to be examined. Certified copies of charge sheets in some cases

are to be obtained. Hence both the accused be remanded to JC

for thirty days.

Considering the submissions made in the application

and the fact that an extension of 30 days for the purposes of

investigation has been given, both the accused are further

remanded to JC till 22.03.2021. They be produced through VC

on 22.03.2021. Copy of order be given to IO. Application at

hand stands disposed. Order be uploaded on website of Delhi

District Court.


20.02.2021

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.

Ahlmad/20.02.2021

Bail ApplicationState vs. Insaf @ Juber & Ors.

FIR No.207/2018U/s 394/307/34 IPC

PS: Delhi Cantt.

20.02.2021

Present : Sh. Suresh Sisodia, Counsel for applicant/accusedShahzada @ Ravi.Sh. Dharam Chand, Addl. PP for State.

File is taken up on an application for grant of interim

bail moved on behalf of applicant/accused Shahzada @ Ravi.

Let a reply to this application be filed on 23.02.2021.


20.02.2021

Sh Satish Aggarwala, Ld. SPP for CBN through V

Documents

Transcript of Sh Satish Aggarwala, Ld. SPP for CBN through V