State Vs. Ravi Kumar - District Courts

State Vs. Ravi Kumar FIR No.264/20

PS. Mayur Vihar Phase-1 U/s: 308/341/34 IPC

05.06.2020

Pursuant to Order No.3105-3125/Judl. Br./East/KKD/Delhi, dated 15.04.2020, present application has been assigned to the undersigned.

Present : Sh. Yadvender Singh, Ld. Additional PP for State.

Sh. Raj Kumar, Ld. Counsel for complainant Sh.

Dinesh.

Sh. Naveen Singla, Ld. Counsel for applicant/

accused Sh. Ravi Kumar.

Reply to the anticipatory bail application filed by the

IO/ASI Mahender Pal, PS Mayur Vihar.

Heard arguments and perused record.

It is stated that these are cross FIRs wherein both the

sides have settled the matter and co-accused Sh. Sachin, Sh. Sonu and

Smt. Mohini have already been granted regular/anticipatory bail on

29.05.2020.

Keeping in view the overall circumstances of the case,

applicant/accused Sh. Ravi Kumar is allowed anticipatory bail on

furnishing of P/Bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the

like amount to the satisfaction of IO/SHO.

The application stands disposed of.

Copy of order be given dasti.

( Sanatan P;asad ) 5"-MC-- k-___,...._

Additional District & Sessions Judge (East)/KKD/Delhi / 05.06.2020

State Vs. Monu FIR No. 227/20

PS. Krishna Nagar U/s 392/394/397/34 IPC

05.06.2020

Pursuant to Order No.3105-3125/Judl. Br. East/KKD/Delhi, dated 15.04.2020, present application has been assigned to the undersigned.


Sh. Roshan Lal, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused,

requested telephonically for adjourning the matter on the

grounds that he could not come to the Court, as he is stuck up in

his village. At request, put up on 08.06.2020 for further

consideration, in the matter.

Order be given dasti.

( Sanatan Prasad ) Additional District & Sessions Judge

(East)/Karkardooma Courts/Delhi 05 06.2020.

State Vs. Vipin Kumar FIR No. 440/18

PS. New Ashok Nagar U/s 308/323/34 IPC

05.06.2020



Ms. Rashmi, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.

IO/ASI Arvind Kumar in person.

Reply is filed in respect of accused Vipin Kumar, in

FIR No.440/18, U/s 308/34 IPC, PS. New Ashok Nagar, Delhi.

Ld. counsel states that she has already filed an application for

correction of the name of the accused, which was inadvertently

mentioned in the order, dated 30.05.2020, as 'Ripon Roy',

instead of 'Vipin'. Ld. counsel wants to withdraw the present

application with liberty to move fresh application for interim

bail. Heard. Correction is allowed and liberty is granted.

Applications stand disposed off and be consigned to record

room.

Order be given dasti. e---- , ---es- ,-----?,--„,---

( anatan Prasad ) Additional District & Sessions Judge

(East)/Karkardooma Courts/Delhi 05.06.2020.

State Vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Master Ji @ Rajesh Kumar Rawat FIR No. 2288/2014

PS. Shakarpur U/s 302/120-B/34 IPC r/w Section 25/54/59 Arms Act

05.06.2020



Sh. Ravi Kaushal, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.

This is an application U/s 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of

interim bail for a period of 45 days under the circumstances of Covid-

19 pandemic. The accused is stated to be in J/C since 13.02.2015. It

appears that reply to the bail application has been filed by SI Rahul

Kumar, PS Laxmi Nagar, (Old PS Shakarpur, Delhi), and no previous

involvement of the present accused is mentioned therein. However,

the good conduct report and also verification report with respect to

judicial custody of the accused has to be obtained from

Superintendent Jail concerned. Let the report from Superintendent

Jail concerned in respect of good conduct and also verification report

in respect of judicial custody of accused Rajesh Kumar @ Master Ji

@ Rajesh Kumar Rawat be called for, for further consideration, on

08.06.2020. IO shall also be present in person and shall submit the

report regarding previous involvement of applicant/accused, as

obtained electronically from SCRB.




State Vs. Chander Prakash FIR No. 80/20

PS. New Ashok Nagar U/s 498-A/406/34 IPC

05.06.2020

Pursuant to Order No.3105-3125/Judi. Br. East/KKD/Delhi, dated 15.04.2020, present application has been assigned to the undersigned.


Sh. Dhananj ay Kumar, Ld. Counsel for

applicant/accused.

A reply has been filed by the Naib Court Sh.

Prabhat. Perused. Ld. APP states that the presence of the

IO/PSI Ms. Sita is necessary to explain the requirement of

custodial interrogation. Ld. counsel states that articles belonging

to the complainant has already been returned to her, however, if

any article is remaining, the applicant/accused is ready to return

the same to the complainant.

On request, put up on 12.06.2020 for presence of

IO/SHO. Notice be issued to 10, in the meantime, to be present

in person.




State Vs. Nasirullah Khan @ Zumman FIR No. 271/16

PS. Pandav Nagar U/s 302/307/34 IPC

05.06.2020

Pursuant to dated 15.04. undersigned

Order No.3105-3125/Judl. Br. East/KKD/Delhi, 2020, present application has been assigned to the

the matter.

Sh. Yadvender Singh, Ld. Additional PP for State.

None for applicant/accused despite repeated calls at

11.05 AM.

Inspector D.K.Tyagi, on behalf of IO/SI Neeraj has

the bail application.

Put up on 09.06.2020 for further consideration, in




Present :

filed reply to

State Vs. Ajay Kumar FIR No. 202/17

PS. EOW U/s 420/409/406/120-B IPC

05.06.2020



Sh. Gaurav Adhlakha, proxy for Sh. Rajesh Anand,

Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.

Perused report from Superintendent, Central Jail

No.11, Mandoli, Delhi. Ld. counsel for applicant is not

available, despite awaiting till 11.00 AM and earlier he has

requested for taking up his matter at 10.30 AM. Sh. Adhlakha,

states that the main counsel Sh. Rajesh Anand comes from

Noida and he is on the way. Put up on 08.06.2020 for further

consideration, in the matter. IO concerned shall be present in

person. Order be given dasti.



At this stage, Sh. Rajesh Anand, ld. counsel for applicant/accused appears at 11.15 AM'and he is apprised of the order passed today, also NDOH.



State Vs. Ajay Kumar FIR No. 201/16

PS. EOW U/s 420/409/406/120-B IPC

05.06.2020



Sh. Gaurav Adhlakha, proxy for Sh. Rajesh Anand,

Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.

Sh. Gaurav Dalal, Ld. Counsel for complainant.

Ld. counsel for applicant is not available, despite

awaiting till 11.00 AM and earlier he has requested for taking up

his matter at 10.30 AM. Sh. Adhlakha, states that the main

counsel Sh. Rajesh Anand comes from Noida and he is on the

way. Put up on 08.06.2020 for further consideration, in the

matter. 10 concerned shall be present in person. Order be given

dasti.



At this stage, Sh. Rajesh Anand, ld. counsel for applicant/accused appears at 11.15 AM and he is apprised of the order passed today, also NDOH.



State Vs. Dinesh Kumar Dhaniwal FIR No. 2/2020

PS. Yamuna Depot Metro U/s 408/420/468/471/120-B IPC

05.06.2020



Sh. Ajay Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for applicant/

accused.

Reply to the anticipatory bail application, moved

U/s 438 Cr.P.C., has been filed.

IO/ASI Virender Singh is not present in the Court

at 3.45 PM to explain requirement of custodial interrogation.

Let IO/SHO be called for, for further hearing, in the matter, on

11.06.2020, at request of Sh. Chaudhary. Order be given dasti.



State Vs. Vimla Devi FIR No. 2/2020

PS. Yamuna Depot Metro U/s 408/420/468/471/120-B IPC

05.06.2020



Sh. Ajay Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for applicant/

accused.

Reply to the anticipatory bail application, moved

U/s 438 Cr.P.C., has been filed.

IO/ASI Virender Singh is not present in the Court

at 3.45 PM to explain requirement of custodial interrogation.

Let IO/SHO be called for, for further hearing, in the matter, on

11.06.2020, at request of Sh. Chaudhary. Order be given dasti.



State Vs. Amit Kumar FIR No.264/20


05.06.2020

Pursuant to Order No.3105-3125/Judi. Br./East/KKD/Delhi, dated 15.04.2020, present application has been assigned to the undersigned.



Dinesh.


accused Sh. Amit Kumar.





sides have settled the matter and co-accused Sh. Sachin, Sh. Sonu and

Smt. Mohini have already been granted regular/anticipatory bail on

29.05.2020.


applicant/accused Sh. Amit Kumar is allowed anticipatory bail on






(East)/KKD/Delhi / 05.06.2020

State Vs. Sumit Kumar FIR No.264/20


05.06.2020




Dinesh.


accused Sh. Sumit Kumar.





sides have settled the matter and co-accused Sh. Sachin, Sh. Sonu

and Smt. Mohini have already been granted regular/anticipatory bail

on 29.05.2020.


applicant/accused Sh. Sumit Kumar is allowed anticipatory bail on







State Vs. Pawan FIR No. 263/2020 PS. Mayur Vihar

U/s: 308/341/34 IPC

05.06.2020



Sh. Naveen Singla, Ld. Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Raj Kumar, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused Sh.

Pawan.

Reply to the bail application filed by the IO/ASI

Mahender Pal, PS Mayur Vihar.



sides have settled the matter and co-accused Sh. Dinesh and Smt.

Shakuntala have already been granted regular/anticipatory bail on

29.05.2020.


applicant/accused Sh. Pawan is admitted to regular bail on furnishing

of P/Bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like

amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned/Ld. MM/Ld. Link

MM/Ld. Duty MM.





State Vs. Dheeraj Kumar FIR No. 263/2020

PS. Mayur Vihar U/s: 308/341/34 IPC

05.06.2020



Sh. Naveen Singla, Ld. Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Raj Kumar, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused Sh.

Dheeraj Kumar.

Reply to the bail application filed by the IO/ASI

Mahender Pal, PS Mayur Vihar.



sides have settled the matter and co-accused Sh. Dinesh and Smt.

Shakuntala have already been granted regular/anticipatory bail vide

order dated 29.05.2020.


applicant/accused Sh. Dheeraj Kumar is allowed anticipatory bail in

the event of arrest, on furnishing of P/Bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-

with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of IO/SHO.



J(

( sanatan Prasac Additional District & Sessions Judge


State Vs. Anwar Qureshi FIR No. 426/2017 PS. Krishna Nagar

U/s 302/120-B/34 IPC & Section 25/27 Arms Act

05.06.2020



Sh. Prakash Priyadarshi, Ld. Counsel for applicant/

accused.

Inspector Santosh Pabri, states that he has already filed

reply to the interim bail application. His further submission is that

there is previous involvement of the accused in FIR No.74/2012, PS

Krishna Nagar, U/s 135 Electricity Act, as well as, FIR No.309/2015,

PS Civil Lines, Delhi, U/s 279 IPC.

Ld. counsel for applicant/accused Sh. Priyadarshi states

that he would argue on the question of previous involvement, as he

has NOC from the concerned department and even, there has been a

settlement, in respect of the offence U/s 279 IPC, PS Civil Lines,

Delhi.

It appears that despite order, dated 01.06.2020, reports

with respect to good conduct of applicant/accused Sh. Anwar Qureshi,

is not being submitted by the Superintendent Jail concerned. Report

be called for immediately, for further consideration, on 08.06.2020.




State Vs. Raj @ Goli FIR No. 1331/18

PS. Shakarpur U/s 392/397/411/120-B/34 IPC & 25 Arms Act

05.06.2020



Sh. Dheeraj Maheshwari, Ld. Counsel for applicant

/accused.

It appears that reply to the bail application has already

been filed on behalf of Inspector Ashok Kumar, PS Laxmi Nagar,

(Old PS Shakarpur, Delhi).

This is an application for grant of interim bail on the

imperative of latest guidelines, issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India as well as H.P.C., Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The accused is

stated to be in J/C since 17.04.2018, therefore, report with regard to

good conduct of the accused from the Superintendent Jail concerned,

also his previous involvement and even the period of his judicial

custody has to be verified. Let the IO submit report regarding

previous involvement of the applicant/accused and Superintendent

Jail concerned shall submit the report regarding good conduct and

further verification report with respect to the period of his judicial

custody, for further consideration, on 08.06.2020.


( Sanatan Prasa Additional District & Sessions Judge


State Vs. Raja Sood FIR No. 694/2013

PS. Kalyanpuri U/s: 302/201/506 IPC & 25, 27 Arms Act

05.06.2020



Sh. Nitin Kumar Sharma, Ld. Counsel for

applicant/accused Raja Sood.

This is bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

on account of the imperatives of latest guidelines issued by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court/HPC of the Hon'ble High Court dated

18.05.2020 and report regarding good conduct of the accused

has been received.

As per copy of report dated 02.06.2020, good

conduct of the applicant/accused has been found satisfactory.

Let the report regarding previous involvement of the accused,

also reply to the application be called from IO/SHO concerned,

also original report of good conduct of the applicant/accused be

called from Jail Superintendent for further consideration in the

matter on 06.06.2020. I0 shall also be present.



State Vs. Lokesh FIR No. 839/15

PS. Krishna Nagar U/s 302/396 IPC

05.06.2020



Inspector Santosh Kumar is present in person.

Sh. Vinay Dhaka, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused,

requested telephonically that he could not come to the

Court today, as is suffering from fever. His further submission was

that previous involvement report of the applicant/accused, also his

good conduct report from jail concerned and reply to be interim bail

application be called for. This is an application for grant of interim

bail, moved U/s 439 Cr.P.C., on behalf of accused Lokesh. Let notice

thereof be issued to IO/SHO to file reply to the bail application. The

IO shall submit report regarding previous involvement of the

applicant/accused and Superintendent Jail concerned shall submit the

report regarding his good conduct and further verification report with

respect to the period of his judicial custody, for further consideration,

on 09.06.2020. IO shall also be present. Copy of the interim bail

application be also given to Ld. APP for State.




State Vs. Lalit @ Sunny FIR No. 195/20 PS. Kalyan Puri

U/s 392/397/34 IPC

05.06.2020



Sh. R.P.Singh, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.

Reply to the bail application is filed.

At request of Sh. Singh, put up on 12.06.2020 for





State Vs. Rakesh FIR No. 245/2020

PS. Kalyanpuri U/s 308/323/306/34 IPC

05.06.2020



Sh. S.K.Gupta, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.

IO/ASI Sushil Kumar is present in person.

Complainants Ms. Sanjana, Ms. Geeta and Master

Shivam are also present.

Reply to the anticipatory bail application is filed by

ASI Sushil Kumar and MLC is also shown. It appears that

injuries allegedly inflicted by the accused Rakesh & Others are

under observation. IO seeks time to take final medical opinion,

for further consideration, on 09.06.2020. IO shall also be present

in person.

Order be given dasti. ti



1 State Vs. Ghanshyam

FIR No. 313/13 PS. Mandawali

U/s: 302/201/120B/34 IPC

05.06.2020


Present :

been filed.

Sh. Yadvender Singh, Ld. Additional PP for State.

Sh. Mukesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for

applicant/accused Ghanshyam.

IO/SI Santosh Kumar states that report has already

Sh. Sharma files copy of order dated 27.05.2020

passed by the court of Sh. Kuldeep Narayan, Ld. ASJ-04, East

District, KKD Courts, Delhi. This is an application for grant of

interim bail on the imperatives of latest guidelines issued by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court/HPC of the Hon'ble High Court dated

18.05.2020.

From perusal of report dated 01.06.2020 of

Superintendent Central Jail No. 12, Mandoli, Delhi, it appears

that accused was previously involved in FIR No. 45/2012, U/s

324/34 IPC, PS Mandawali but was acquitted on 11.05.2017

and his conducted in jail is satisfactory. Accused is stated to be

in J.C. since 25.05.2013. Hence, keeping in view the facts and

circumstances of the case and in view of emergent situation of

2 State Vs. Ghanshyam

FIR No. 313/13 PS. Mandawali

U/s: 302/201/120B/34 IPC

COVID-19 pandemic, the applicant/accused Ghanshyam is

allowed interim bail for a period of 45 days from the date of his

release on furnishing of P/Bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the

satisfaction of Superintendent Jail concerned and he will

surrender accordingly before the jail authorities on expiry of 45

days from date of his release and he shall not indulge in any

activity prejudicial to the fair trial of the case.

Copy of order be sent to Superintendent Jail

through e-mail also.


The application consigned to Record Room.



1

State Vs. Karan Verma FIR No. 486/2013

PS. Mandawali

U/s: 302/201/34 IPC

05.06.2020

Pursuant to Order No.3105-3 125/Judl. Br./East/KKD/Delhi, dated 15.04.2020, present application has been assigned to the undersigned.


Sh. Usman Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel with victim

Ms. Sarita W/o deceased Sh. Yogesh Chaudhary.

SI Santosh Kumar is present.

None is present on behalf of applicant/accused

despite repeated calls at 01:45 p.m.

Reply to the interim application alongwith previous

involvement report is filed by SI Santosh Kumar, PS

Mandawali.

Put up on 11.06.2020 for further consideration in

the matter.


(1ast)/KKD/Delhi / 05.06.2020

At this stage, Sh. Mohit Bhardwaj, Ld. Counsel for

applicant/accused appears and he draws my attention towards

order dated 15.05.2020 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

thereby granting interim bail to the applicant/accused Sh. Karan

2


PS. Mandawali U/s: 302/201/34 IPC

Verma for a period of three weeks from the date of release i.e.

17.05.2020 and same expires on 1)6.06.2020.

The present application is being pressed on the ground

of imperatives of latest guidelines issued by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court/HPC of the Hon'ble High Court dated

18.05.2020 and on another medical ground of operation of his

maternal grand-mother of applicant/accused as there is no one

else applicant/accused to take care of maternal grand-mother of

the accused which is scheduled For 12.06.2020.

Reply to the interim bail application has also been

filed.

It appears that as per the report submitted by the

IO, there is previous involvement of accused in FIR NO.

370/2011, U/S 365/323/34 IPC, l'S Laxmi Nagar, also FIR NO.

941/2011. U/S 382/34, PS Shakarpur. Ld. Counsel Sh. Mohit

Bhardwaj submits that accused has already been acquitted in

both cases.

Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances

of the case and further the fact teat accused has already availed

the benefit of interim bail in the matter and surgery has to be

performed on 12.06.2020, I do not find any ground to grant

extension of interim bail to the 'applicant/accused Karan


PS. Mandawali U/s: 302/201/34 IPC

Verma.

The application stands rejected.

The application be consigned to Record Room.


(East)/K KD/Delhi / 05.06.2020

State Vs. Amit Singh Chauhan FIR No. 2735/2015

PS. Shakarpur U/s 302/34 IPC

05.06.2020



None for applicant/accused despite repeated calls till 12.10

PM.

It appears that reply to the interim bail application has already

been filed on behalf of SI Rahul Kumar, PS Laxmi Nagar, (old PS Shakarpur,

Delhi).

Ld. counsel for applicant/accused Sh. Ankit Mutreja has

contacted Sh. Rakesh Verma, P.A. to the Court and his submission is that the

application is covered by the imperative of latest guidelines, issued by Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India as well as H.P.C., at Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and

his request was that page No.20 of the application can be looked into in this

regard, where the relevant portion of the guidelines, have been annexed and

his further submission was that accused is handicap to the extent of 90% and is

stated to be in J/C since 27.11.2015, therefore, report with regard to good

conduct of the accused from the Superintendent Jail concerned, also report

regarding his previous involvement and even the period of his judicial custody

has to be verified. Let the IO submit report regarding previous involvement of

the applicant/accused and Superintendent Jail concerned shall submit the

report regarding good conduct and further verification report with respect to

the period of his judicial custody, for further consideration, on 09.06.2020.




State Vs. Pawan FIR No. 545/2018

PS. New Ashok Nagar U/s 394/395/412/120-B/34 IPC

05.06.2020



Sh. Mukesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.

Reply to the interim bail application is filed by ASI

Arvind Kumar, PS, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi.

It is stated by Sh. Sharma that application is covered by

the imperative of latest guidelines, issued by Ilonible Supreme Court

of India as well as H.P.C., Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and his

further submission is that accused is in J/C since 26.10.2018,

therefore, report with regard to good conduct of the accused from the

Superintendent Jail concerned, also his previous involvement and

even the period of his judicial custody has to be verified. Let the IO

submit report regarding previous involvement of the

applicant/accused and Superintendent Jail concerned shall submit the

report regarding good conduct and further verification report with

respect to the period of his judicial custody, for further consideration,

on 10.06.2020, at request of Sh. Sharma. Order be given dasti.

( Sanatan Prasad ) Additional District Sr, Sessions Judge


State Vs. Kamruddin FIR No. 47/18

PS. Kalyan Puri

U/s 302/34 IPC

05.06.2020



Ms. Ifat Sultana, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.

SI Pawan Kumar, for IO/Inspector Daya Sagar, is present.

Replies to the bail application as well as interim bail application

have already been filed by Inspector Daya Sagar, PS Kalyanpuri, Delhi.

Ms. Sultana, states that due to inadvertence, the application was

filed U/s 438 Cr.P.C., though, it should have been filed U/s 439 Cr.P.C. for grant

of interim bail for 45 days, in view of emergent situation of Covid-19 pandemic.

Heard. The application is taken to be and treated U/s 439 Cr.P.C.

It is stated by Ms. Sultana, that application is covered by the

imperative of latest guidelines, issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well

as H.P.C., Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and her further submission is that accused

is in J/C since 06.02.2018, therefore, report with regard to good conduct of the

accused from the Superintendent Jail concerned, also his previous involvement

and even the period of his judicial custody has to be verified. Let the 10/SHO

shall submit report regarding previous involvement of the applicant/accused and

Superintendent Jail concerned shall submit the report regarding good conduct and

further verification report with respect to the period of his judicial custody, for

further consideration, on 10.06.2020.


( Sanatan Prasaci)

Additional District & Sessions Judge

(Fast)/Karkardooma Courts/Delhi 05.06.2020.

State Vs. Waseem FIR No. 691/2015

PS. Mayur Vihar U/s 308/427/34 'PC

05.06.2020



Sh. Mohd. Arif, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.

A reply to the bail application, moved U/s 439

Cr.P.C. for grant of fresh bail, is filed by SI Dinesh Tyagi, PS

Mayur Vihar, Delhi. Heard. It appears from the application that

the accused was on bail, but did not appear on 29.05.2019

before the Ld. Court concerned and therefore, NBW was issued

against the accused and in execution thereof, he was lodged in

J/C. There are strict guidelines of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

for not entertaining any matter other than the urgent one and

matter pertains to the record of the Court concerned. Ld.

counsel wants to withdraw the present application with liberty to

move appropriate application for cancellation of NBW before

the Ld. Court concerned. Heard. Liberty is granted.

Application stands disposed off and be consigned to record

room. Order be given dasti.



State Vs. lzhar Ahmed & Ors. (Sonu Verma) FIR No. 134/17

PS. Pandav Nagar U/s 302/392/397/411/34 IPC

05.06.2020


Present : Sh. Yadvender Singh. Ld. Additional PP for State.

Ms. Ifat Sultana, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.

Inspector D.K.Tejwan is present and states that he has already

filed report to the bail application of the accused Sonu Verma.

Ms. Sultana, states that due to inadvertence, the application was

filed U/s 438 Cr.P.C., though, it should have been filed U/s 439 Cr.P.C. for grant

of interim bail for 45 days, in view of emergent situation of Covid-19 pandemic.

Heard. The application is taken to be and treated U/s 439 Cr.P.C.

It is stated by Ms. Sultana, that application is covered by the

imperative of latest guidelines, issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well

as H.P.C., Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and her further submission is that accused

is in J/C since 04.05.2017, therefore, report with regard to good conduct of the

accused from the Superintendent Jail concerned, also his previous involvement

and even the period of his judicial custody has to be verified. Let the 10/SHO

shall submit report regarding previous involvement of the applicant/accused and

Superintendent Jail concerned shall submit the report regarding good conduct and

further verification report with respect to the period of his judicial custody, for

further consideration, on 10.06.2020.




State Vs. Rohit @ Deepak FIR No. 267/2017

PS. Mayur Vihar U/s 302 IPC & Section 25 Arms Act

05.06.2020



Sh. Devender Kumar, Ld. Counsel for applicant

/accused.

Reply to the bail application has been filed.

Ld. counsel states that IO concerned may be called

for, for furnishing clarification with respect to the previous

involvement report of the accused, which has been enclosed

with reply to the bail application.

At request, put up on 09.06.2020 for further

consideration, in the matter. IO/SHO shall be present.


( S anatan Prasa -n Additional District & Sessions Judge


State Vs. Wasim Akram @ Wasim @ Lambu FIR No. 383/19

PS. Pandav Nagar U/s: 186/353/332/307/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act

05.06.2020



Sh. Mohd. Ilyas, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused

Sh. Wasim Akram @ Lambu.

Reply to the interim bail application is filed by IO

SI Sh. Sonu Singh.

Heard arguments and perused the previous

involvement report of the accused.

Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused states that there

is no specific role of the accused in the present case. He further

submits that the medical papers from LNJP Hospital have to be

verified as the same were not received by the IO earlier. Copies

supplied now.

Put up on 10.06.2020 for verification report and

further consideration. IO shall also be present.

Copy of order be given dasti. r, „..1 )



State Vs. Prabhjot Singh FIR No. 152/2019

PS. Krishna Nagar U/s: 393/394/398/120-B IPC & 25/27/54/59 A.Act

05.06.2020



Sh. Raj Kumar, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused

Prabhjot Singh.

Reply to the bail application is filed by IO/SI

Narender Pal Singh, PS Krishna Nagar, Delhi.

On request of Ld. Counsel, put up on 06.06.2020

for arguments in the present application as main counsel Sh.

L.K. Singh is not available. IO shall also be present.



State Vs. Haider Ali FIR No. 679/2014

PS. Preet Vihar U/s 302/394/397/411 IPC

05.06.2020

Pursuant to Order No.3105-3125/Jucll. Br. East/KKD/Delhi, dated 15.04.2020, present application has been assigned to the undersigned.


Sh. Kapil Singhal, Ld. Counsel for applicant

/accused.

Reply has already been riled to the interim bail

application. Perused previous involvement report, annexed

therewith. Let the Superintendent Jail concerned submit the

report regarding good conduct and further verification report

with respect to the period of judicial custody of the accused, for

further consideration, on 09.00.20:0.


Sanatan S 1-rasad Additional District & Sessions Judge


State Vs. Haider Ali FIR No. 679/2014

PS. Preet Vihar U/s 302/394/397/411 IPC

05.06.2020



Sh. Kapil Singhal, Ld. Counsel for applicant

/accused.

Reply has already been filed to the interim bail

application Perused previous involvement report, annexed

therewith. Let the Superintendent Jail concerned sli‘11 submit

the report regarding good conduct and further verification report

with respect to the period of s judicial custody, for further

consideration, on 09.06.2020.




State Vs. Dheeraj Kumar FIR No. 358/2016 PS. Geeta Colony

U/s: 302/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act & 3/181, 39/192 M.V. Act

05.06.2020



Sh. C.S. Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused

Sh. Dheeraj Kumar S/o Sh. Shankar.

It appears that reply to the interim bail application,

report regarding previous involvement have already been filed.

Heard some arguments.

At this stage, Ld. Counsel states that accused is in

J.C. since 27.09.2016 and he will move application for grant of

regular bail and wants to withdraw the present bail application.

Heard. Allowed.

The present application stands disposed of.

The present application be consigned to Record

Room.



State Vs. Sameer Ahmad @ Babba FIR No. 101/2017

PS. Preet Vihar U/s 302/307/120-B/34 IPC

05.06.2020



Sh. Atul Sharma, Ld. Counsel for

applicant/accused, requested telephonically for adjourning the

matter on the grounds that he could not come to the Court today.

Report regarding interim bail and previous

involvement, is filed.






State Vs. Chanchal @ Chokhe @ Yogesh @ Rohit @ Raja FIR No. 465/2017

PS. New Ashok Nagar

U/s 365/302/201/120-B/506/34 IPC

05.06.2020



Sh. Vishal Sheoran, Ld. Counsel for applicant

/accused.

IO/SI Karamvir in person, files reply to the bail

application.

Arguments heard. Perused report, dated

04.06.2020 from Superintendent Central Jail No.] 1, Mandoli,

Delhi and also previous involvement report of the accused,

submitted by the IO present and it appears that besides the

present case, the accused has been involved in two other cases in

FIR No.12751/2015, U/s 379/411 IPC, PS Crime and FIR

No.32042/2016, U/s 379/411/34 IPC, PS Crime, wherein he has

already suffered undergone sentence, however, the interim bail

is requested on medical grounds. However, ld. counsel Sh.

Sheoran concedes that though the present application for grant

of interim bail is not covered under the imperative of latest

guidelines, issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as

H.P.C., Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, but interim bail is being

requested on medical grounds. Perused medical report, dated

04.06.2020 from SRM, Central Jail No.11, Mandoli, Delh and

keeping in view the overall medical report and further the

emergent circumstances of Covid-19 pandemic, the

applicant/accused Sh. Chanchal @ Chokhe @ Yogesh @ Lohit

@ Raja is allowed interim bail for a period of one week from the

date of his release on furnishing of personal bond in the su ri of

Rs.50,000/- with one local surety of the like amount tc the

satisfaction of the concerned Court/Duty MM/Ld. Link AM,

subject to the conditions that the applicant/accused shall nait try

to contact or influence the witnesses directly or indirectly and he

shall not indulge himself in any such activity, which ca 1 be

prejudicial to the fair trial of the case. Further, the

applicant/accused shall appear before the Ld. Trial Court

concerned without any demur and will surrender on expiry of

the period of interim bail before the Jail Authorities, as per

rules.

Copy of this order be given dasti. Copy of this

order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for information through

email also. The interim bail application is disposed off

accordingly. Be consigned to record room.

Sanatan Prasad )

Additional District & Sessions Jud;e

(East)/Karkardooma Courts/Delh 05.06.2020.

1 State Vs. Nimit Gaba @ Ajay @ Kubba

FIR No. 101/17 PS. Preet Vihar

U/s: 302/307/120B/148/149/174A/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act

05.06.2020



Sh. Sunil Kalra, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.

Report to the present bail application as well as

report regarding previous involvement have already been filed.

Accused is in J.C. since 07.04.2017. There is no previous

involvement of present applicant/accused except in the present

case as per report regarding good conduct of applicant/accused

Sh. Nimit Gaba @ Ajay @ Kubba, dated 02.06.2020 and it

appears that accused was issued with PUNISHMENT TICKET,

dated 25.04.2020 and thereupon he was warned and ordered to

comply with jail rules in future. Ld. Counsel Sh. Sunil Kalra

submits that misconduct, complained of is of minor nature and it

has no criminal overtones and further the accused shall abide by

jail rules scrupulously in future and he is in J.C. since

07.04.2017 and has never been allowed the benefit of interim

bail previously.

Keeping in view the overall facts and

circumstances of the case and in view of emergent situation of

2 State Vs. Nimit Gaba @ Ajay @ Kubba


U/s: 302/307/120B/148/149/174A/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act

COVID-19 pandemic, the applicant/accused Nimit Gaba @

Ajay @ Kubba is allowed interim bail for a period of 45 days

from the date of his release on furnishing of Personal Bond in

the sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of Superintendent Jail

concerned and he will surrender accordingly before the jail

authorities on expiry of 45 days from date of his release and he

shall not indulge in any activity prejudicial to the fair trial of the

case.

Copy of order be sent to Superintendent Jail

through e-mail also.


The application consigned to Record Room.



1 Pooja Devi Vs. Uma & Ors.

05.06.2020


Present :

and 3.

Sh. K.S. Goswami, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.

Sh. M.K. Singh, Ld. Counsel with defendants No. 1

and 3.

Sh. Arun Sharma, Ld. Counsel for defendant No. 5.

None for defendants No. 2 and 4.

Vakalatnama is filed on behalf of defendants No. 1

It is submitted by Sh. M.K. Singh that he would

represent defendant No. 2 and will file memo of appearance

immediately.

Sh. Goswami submits report on summons in respect

of defendants, also files affidavit of service.

Sh. Goswami submits that property in question is

joint one but defendants No. 1 to 3 have already disconnected

electricity connection. On the other hand, Sh. Singh pleads that

plaintiff was allowed to reside in property on compassionate

grounds and she is neither paying rent nor paying towards

electricity consumption charges.

Keeping in view the urgency involved, defendants

2

Pooja Devi Vs. Uma & Ors.

No. 1 and 3 are directed not to disconnect electricity supply to

the plaintiff and they will ensure electricity supply to the

plaintiff for 15 days if they have already disconnected the same,

in the meantime, plaintiff may take appropriate steps for

obtaining a sub-meter on her own expenses.

Put up on 20.06.2020 for WS/reply by all the

defendants, also memo of appearance/Vakalatnama on behalf of

defendants No. 2 and 4 also, if any.


( S natan Prasad ) Additional District & Sessions Judge


1 State Vs. Sameer Ahmed Etc.


U/s: 302/307/120B/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act

05.06.2020



Sh. Prakash Priyadarshi, Ld. Counsel for

applicant/accused Sameer Ahmed @ Baba S/o

Zameer Ahmed in FIR No. 101/17, U/S 302/307/120B/34 IPC

and 25/27 Arms Act, PS Preet Vihar.

Report regarding good conduct of the above

applicant/accused, dated 03.06.2020, received from

Superintendent, Central Jail No. 13, Mandoli, Delhi.

Sh. Priyadarshi states that he is representing the

above applicant/accused i.e. Sh. Sameer Ahmed @ Baba only,

which matter has been listed at serial No. 29 of the cause list,

dated 05.06.2020, with e-mail id [email protected]

and mobile No. 9717061985 and even report of good conduct in

respect of the above accused only, has been received from the

Superintendent Jail, but strangely the application for interim bail

enclosed with the court record is in respect of Jaspreet Singh @

Bunny Sardar, even the matter listed at serial No. 30, already

adjourned for 08.06.2020, is in respect of accused Jaspreet

2 State Vs. Sameer Ahmed Etc.


U/s: 302/307/120B/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act

Singh @ Bunny Sardar but FIR No. 372/18, U/S 307/34 IPC, PS

Geeta Colony, New Delhi, only and his application in respect of

the above accused i.e. Sameer Ahmed has not been listed at

serial No. 29 with its correct record annexed.

Ld. Counsel for above applicant/accused further

states that he will take suitable remedial measure immediately

and he requests that previous involvement in respect of above

applicant/accused be called for alongwith good conduct report

in respect of the above applicant/accused. Let the matter be

clarified and application be traced.

At this stage, Sh. Priyadarshi prays that liberty may

be granted to move another application in respect of the above

applicant/accused, if desired by him.

Heard. Liberty is given.

Put up on 08.06.2020 for clarification and further

consideration in the matter.

Additional District & Sessions Judge (East)/KKD/Delhi / 05.06.2020

State Vs. Deepak Yadav FIR No. 231/2018

PS. Ghazipur U/s 186/353/332/308/34 IPC

05.06.2020



Sh. Santosh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.

This is an application for issuance of Robkar to the jail

authorities of Dasna Jail, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, as the accused is

on bail in FIR No.231/2018, U/s 186/353/332/308/34 IPC, PS

Ghazipur. Ld. counsel submits that the applicant/accused is

unnecessarily suffering on account of issuance of production warrants

by the Ld. Court concerned, as earlier, he was incarcerated in Dasna

Jail, but was allowed bail in that case vide order, dated 08.05.2020.

There are strict guidelines of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for not

taking up any matter other than the urgent one, however, keeping in

view the fact that the matter pertains to the liberty of the

applicant/accused, let notice be issued to the Ahlmad concerned to put

up the file before the Ld. Court concerned for consideration, on

15.06.2020. Order be given dasti.



State Vs. Sameer Ahmed & Ors. (Jaspreet Singh @ Bunny Sardar) FIR No. 372/2018 PS. Geeta Colony

U/s 307/34 IPC

05.06.2020



Sh. Atul Sharma, Ld. Counsel for

applicant/accused, requested telephonically for adjourning the

matter on the grounds that he could not come to the Court today.

Reply to the interim bail application, is filed.




( Sanatan Prasad) Additional District & Sessions Judge


State Vs. Karamvir Singh FIR No. 148/2017 PS. Crime Branch

U/s 365/397/412/420/467/468/471/120-B/34 IPC

05.06.2020



Sh. Vipul Sharma, proxy for Sh. Shailender Babbar,

Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused, requested telephonically for

adjourning the matter on the grounds that arguing counsel Sh.

Shailender Babbar is not available today.

This is an application for grant of regular bail to

accused Karamvir Singh. Let reply be filed by the IO/SHO

concerned, for consideration, in the matter on, 08.06.2020.

Copy of the application be also given to Ld. Additional PP for

State.


( Sanatan Praad Additional District & Sessions Judge


State Vs. Gagan @ Manu FIR No. 457/2015 PS. Geeta Colony

U/s 302/307/34 IPC

05.06.2020



Sh. Vinay Dhaka, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused,

requested telephonically that he could not come to the

Court today, as is suffering from fever. His further submission was

that previous involvement report of the applicant/accused, also his

good conduct report from jail concerned and reply to be interim bail

application be called for. This is an application for grant of interim

bail, moved U/s 439 Cr.P.C., on behalf of accused Gagan @ Manu.

Let notice thereof be issued to IO/SHO to file reply to the bail

application. The JO shall submit report regarding previous

involvement of the applicant/accused and Superintendent Jail

concerned shall submit the report regarding his good conduct and

further verification report with respect to the period of his judicial

custody, for further consideration, on 09.06.2020. JO shall also be

present. Copy of the interim bail application be also given to Ld. APP

for State.

Order be given dasti. ()



State Vs. Amit Adhana FIR No. 29/2014 PS. Kalyan Puri

U/s 394/397/34 IPC

05.06.2020



Sh. Sh. Ravi Kaushal, Ld. Counsel for

applicant/accused.

At request, put up on 15.06.2020 for consideration,

in the matter before the Court concerned.




State Vs. Zishan Mammu FIR No. 101/2017

PS. Preet Vihar U/s 302/120-B/34 IPC r/w Section 25/27 Arms Act

05.06.2020



Sh. Naveen Kumar, Ld. Counsel for applicant/

accused.

This is an application for grant for extension of

period of interim bail of applicant/accused Sh. Zishan @

Mammu for a further period of three weeks, which was granted

to him vide order, dated 21.05.2020. Sh. Naveen Kumar, ld.

counsel for applicant/accused states that the period of interim

bail has already expired on 04.06.2020 and the accused has not

yet surrendered till this time, as the present application has

already been filed on 02.06.2020 through email and was taken

up for hearing on 04.06.2020. He further submits the accused

shall surrender today and application may be kept pending as

certain surgery procedure has to be operated upon on the wife of

the accused namely Smt. Taiyabba. Ld. counsel submits that it

was because of certain medical complications, (with respect to

blood report), and now he will obtain another date for surgery

and then will press the application.

Perused reply to the interim bail application. It

appears that the date of surgery of Smt. Taiyabba was fixed

26.05.2020, but she did not report at the hospital on 26.05.20

Put up on 12.06.2020 for consideration on

application. A copy of this order be sent to the IO, who s

also be present in person. Copy of this order be also sent to

Superintendent Jail concerned for necessary information.

Order be given dasti. Q

( Sanatan Prasad ) Additional District & Sessions Judg


State Vs. Narsingh Kumar Verma FIR No. 568/2013

PS. New Ashok Nagar U/s 302/392/396/397/412/34 IPC

05.06.2020



Sh. Rajni Kant, Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.

This is an application, seeking clarification and to

show cause to the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Mandoli,

Delhi, as to why the applicant/accused Sh. Narsingh Kumar

Verma has not been released from the custody in accordance

with order, dated 01.06.2020, whereby, the accused was granted

interim bail for a period of 45 days, on his furnishing of

personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of

Jail Superintendent and subject to the condition that the

applicant/accused shall not indulge in any such activity which

can be prejudicial to the fair trial of the case. Perused report,

dated 04.06.2020 from the Superintendent Central Jail No.12,

Mandoli, Delhi-93 and as per report, it appears that the order,

dated 01.06.2020, issued by the Ld. Court did not mention about

Section 302 IPC and copy of custody warrant of the accused

Narsingh Kumar Verma is also enclosed, which mentions

Section 302 IPC. I have perused copy of the order, dated

01.06.2020, which in fact does not mention about Section 302

IPC in FIR No.568/13, PS New Ashok Nagar, Delhi, how Iver,

Sh. Rajni Kant submits that in the application, moved befor the

Ld. Court concerned, the prayer did mention about Section 302

IPC. Under the circumstances, the applicant/accused can rove

remedial application and present application cannot be

considered, as the interim bail was considered and allowci to

the applicant/accused only in respect of offences

U/s

396/412/120-B IPC in FIR No.568/2013, PS New Ashok 1\1; gar,

Delhi, as per record. The application stands disposed off anti be

consigned to record room. Order be given dasti.

( Sanatan Prasad ) Additional District & Sessions Judi

(East)/Karkardooma Courts/Deihl 05.06.2020.

State Vs. Ravi Kumar - District Courts

Documents

Transcript of State Vs. Ravi Kumar - District Courts