Bail Application

Bail application No.
1566/2020
FIR no. 0130/2020
U/s 323/304/34 IPC
PS: Narela
State Vs. Bijender
09.06.2020
Arguments heard on the application on

08.06.2020. Today the matter was kept for orders.
The present application U/s 439 Cr.PC for grant of

bail has been moved on behalf of accused/applicant on the
ground that he is an innocent person and he has nothing to do
with the alleged offence, he has been falsely implicated by the
police officials of PS Narela, Delhi in the above noted case at the
instance of the complainant and just to solve the present case
and the allegations leveled upon the applicant/accused in the FIR
are false and baseless and having no iota of truth. It is further
submitted that mother of the applicant/accused is an old aged
lady and there is no body in the family to look after his mother
except the present applicant/accused because the father of the
accused/applicant has already expired and mother of the
applicant/accused is facing very hardship to survive during this
time of Covid -19 pandemic disease. It is further submitted that
investigation of the above stated case has been completed and
the applicant/accused is no more required for further
investigation. Hence, request for grant of bail has been made.
Ld. Addl PP opposed the bail application on the

ground that there are serious allegations levelled against the
accused/applicant as he had hit the complainant and his friend
and inflicted injuries upon both of them due to which
complainant's friend
-2-
Rajbir had expired. Hence, keeping in view the seriousness of
offence, bail should not be granted to accused/applicant.
FIR is perused. In the FIR, it is specifically deposed
by complainant Ashfaq that accused/applicant had hit him and his
friend Rajbir with a thick plastic pipe due to which both of them
received injuries and later on his friend Rajbir succumbed to
injuries.
Keeping in view the gravity of offence, allegations are
serious in nature as applicant/accused had beaten two persons
out of whom one has already been died. Further
applicant/accused was identified by the complainant and arrested
at the instance of the complainant and the weapon of offence i.e.
plastic pipe was recovered at the instance of accused/applicant;
Challan has not been filed. Thus, matter is still under
investigation.
In view of the seriousness of offence, no ground for
bail is made out. Accordingly, bail application stands dismissed.
(Jitendra Kumar Mishra)

ASJ/Duty Judge: North,
Rohini Courts, Delhi(sh)
Bail application No. 2065/19
FIR no.224/19
U/s 20 NDPS Act
PS: Prashant Vihar
State Vs. Nagender Rai.
09.06.2020

08.06.2020. Today the matter is kept for orders.

bail has been moved on behalf of accused/applicant on the
ground that father of accused/applicant is aged about 92 years
and is the patient of old aged ailment and hearing about the
pandemic of coronavirus has lost the hope of his life and wants to
see his only son. It is further submitted that accused/applicant is
aged 55 years and patient of diabetes and regularly getting
treatment under the jail authorities. It is further submitted that
accused is in JC for the last nine months. It is further submitted
that charges have been framed against him on 03.03.2020 and
FSL Report have been submitted by the police officers; it is
further submitted that accused/applicant is the only earning
member of his family having three unmarried daughters and his
wife is also suffering from illness. Hence, request for grant of bail
has been made.
It is informed by ld. Addl. PP that there is no previous
criminal history of accused/applicant. As per the report of IO, the
documents of father of accused/applicant have been verified.
Keeping in view the fact that only 1.5 kg of ganja is

recovered from the applicant which is of intermediate quantity
and the -2-
fact that father of accused/applicant is aged 92 years and is an
old aged patient and applicant has been in JC for the last more
than nine months, request for bail is allowed.
Accused/applicant is granted bail on his furnishing
personal bond in the sum of 50,000/- with one surety of like
amount to the satisfaction of ld. duty MM/Vacation Judge
subject to the following conditions:
(1) That he shall not indulge into similar offence or any
other offence in the event of release on bail;
(2) That he shall not tamper with the evidence in any
manner;
(3) That in case of change of his residential address, he
shall intimate the court about the same;
(4) That he shall regularly appear before the Court on
each and every date of hearing;
(5) That he shall maintain social distancing at the
public places i.e he shall maintain the distance of at least 1.5
meter from every other person;
(6) That he will not enjoy any marriage function or any
other function or any public gathering during the period of
this interim bail; and
Accused be released from JC if not required in any
other case. A copy of the order be sent to Jail Superintendent
through dispatch rider deputed in this court by the Jail authority.
Present application stands disposed of accordingly.

ASJ/Vacation Judge: North,
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Bail application No.1705/2020
FIR no. 383/19
U/s 302/120/34 IPC
PS:Bhalswa Dairy
State Vs. Bishakha and anr.
09.06.2020


interim bail has been moved on behalf of accused/applicant
Baisakha on the ground that she is not having any source of
income and also having two minor school going children
including one daughter aged about 15 years; it is further
submitted that applicant wants to arrange the money after
releasing from judicial custody for her family for the welfare of her
minor children's as the daughter of accused namely Babita aged
about 15 years is suffering from physical problem, hence, she
required her mother for treatment and arrangement of money. It
is further submitted that accused/applicant is not a previous
convict and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
further submitted that accused/applicant is permanent resident of
Delhi and there is no chance of her absconding or tampering with
the prosecution evidence. Hence, request for grant of bail has
been made.
Ld. Addl PP opposed the bail application on the ground that
there are serious allegations levelled against the
accused/applicant as accused/applicant along with one Amit
committed murder of her own husband Pramod Sharma which
fact is told by deceased Pramod Sharma to their son who is a
-2-
witness in this case. Hence, keeping in view the seriousness of
offence, bail should not be granted to accused/applicant.
FIR is perused. In the FIR, it is specifically deposed
by
Rajeev Sharma that his father/deceased Pramod Sharma had
told him that his mother along with one Amit had shot him.
Keeping in view the gravity of offence, allegations are
serious in nature as applicant/accused in connivance with the co-
accused had committed murder of her own husband and the said
fact is itself disclosed by her son. This court is of the view that at
this stage applicant is not to be released as likelihood is there
that she may influence the prime witness in this case i.e. her son.
Hence, no ground for bail is made out.
Accordingly, bail application stands dismissed.

Bail application No.R-1713/2020
FIR no. 64/2020
U/s 195A/386/34 IPC and 27 Arms Act.
PS: Bawana
State Vs. Rahul @ Maya
09.06.2020

interim bail has been moved on behalf of accused/applicant
Rahul @ Maya on the ground that applicant is an innocent
person and has been falsely implicated in the above noted case;
It is further submitted that accused has already been granted bail
in FIR no. 57/2020. It is also submitted investigation is duly
completed in all respects and no fruitful purpose will be served to
keep him behind the bars. It is further submitted that
accused/applicant is permanent resident of Delhi and there is no
apprehension of tampering the witness and fleeing from justice. It
is further submitted that mother of applicant is suffering from
illness and father of the accused has also expired and there is no
body to look after his mother. It is further submitted that
applicant/accused is only bread earner of his family and his
family is totally depended upon the applicant/accused. Hence,
request for grant of bail has been made.
Ld. Addl PP opposed the bail application submitting

that conduct of accused/applicant disentitles him for grant of bail
as per the report of IO.
Report of IO is perused wherein it is mentioned that
accused/applicant had threatened the complainant by way of
whats-app to take back the case FIR no. 57/20 for which a
-2-
separate FIR has been registered for the said offence, bail
should not be granted to accused/applicant.
FIR is perused.
Keeping in view the gravity of offence and in view of
the report of IO, this court is of the considered view that the
accused/applicant had threatened the complainant by using
facility of conference on whatsapp, I do not think that it would be
safe for the complainant to release the accused/applicant on bail
at this stage as there is every likelihood that if accused/applicant
is granted bail he may threaten the complainant or flee from the
ends of justice. Hence, no ground for bail is made out.
Accordingly, bail application stands dismissed.

FIR no. 200/06
PS: Mangolpuri
U/s 302 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act.
State Vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and ors.
SC no. 49605/15
09.06.2020
Present : Sh. J.S. Malik, ld. Addl. PP for State.

Accused persons on bail are present.
Sh. Sachin Dev Sharma, ld. Counsel for accused Shiv
Charan Bansal.
Sh. Rashid Hashmi, ld. Counsel for accused
Shailender and Lalit Maan.
Sh. Pallav Gupta, Advocate on behalf of complainant.
Today, the matter is listed for pronouncement of

judgment. It is 3:54 pm.
An affidavit has been filed on behalf of complainant

Ms. Kanta Devi submitting that she has filed Crl. MC No.
1493/2020 titled Kanta Devi vs. State and ors challenging order
dated 28.02.2020 passed by this Court and Crl. M.C no.
1495/2020 titled Rajesh Gupta Vs. State and ors, challenging
order dated 28.2.2020 passed by this Court and Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi vide separate orders dated 08.06.2020 passed in
the aforesaid petitions has been pleased to stay the Trial Court
proceedings till further orders.
Be listed for further directions on the date already
fixed as per the date of en-bloc listing i.e. on 23.07.2020.
However, in case any further directions are there, then, parties
may approach ld. Vacation Judge or the date when the
undersigned is on duty so
-2-
that directions to be complied with.

Special Judge (NDPS), North,
FIR no. 362/2020
U/s 380/457 IPC
PS: Mukherjee Nagar
State Vs. Amit @ Nikku
09.06.2020
This is an application for grant of bail moved on behalf of

accused/applicant Amit @ Nikku which is placed before the
undersigned in pursuance of Order No. 19913-
19963/F2(9)/Judl/COVID/North/RC/2020 dated 30.05.2020 of
ld. District & Sessions Judge(North), Rohni, Delhi.

Sh.Diwakar Sinha, ld. Counsel for accused/applicant.
Arguments heard through video conferencing.

After part arguments, ld. Counsel for accused/applicant
seeks adjournment.
Heard. Allowed.
At request, put up for arguments on 11.06.2020

FIR no. 18/17
U/s 302/201 IPC
PS: Shahbad Dairy
State Vs.Anil
09.06.2020
This is an application for grant of interim bail moved on

behalf of accused/applicant Anil which is placed before the
undersigned in pursuance of Order No. 19913-

Sh.Pankaj Verma, ld. Counsel for accused/applicant.
Arguments heard through video conferencing
Report from IO is received. However, report from

concerned Jail Supdtt has not been received regarding the
conduct of accused Anil.
One more opportunity is given. IO shall ensure the
submission of report regarding the conduct of accused/applicant
to be obtained from the concerned Supdtt Jail to be placed
before the Court on 11.06.2020

FIR no. 03/19
U/s 307/120B/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act
PS: Bawana
State Vs. Sunny Dabas @ Hunny
09.06.2020

accused/applicant Sunny Dabas @ Hunny which is placed
before the undersigned in pursuance of Order No. 19913-

Sh.Vikas Sharma, ld. Counsel for accused/applicant.
Arguments heard through video conferencing
After part arguments, ld. Counsel for

accused/applicant is seeking withdrawal of the present bail
application.
Ld. Addl. PP has no objection for withdrawal of the
bail application.
In view of the submissions made by ld. Counsel for
accused/applicant, the present bail application stands
dismissed as withdrawn.

FIR no. 130/19
U/s 392/397/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act
PS: Bawana
State Vs. Sunny Dabas @ Hunny
09.06.2020

accused/applicant Sunny Dabas @ Hunny which is placed
before the undersigned in pursuance of Order No. 19913-

Sh.Vikas Sharma, ld. Counsel for accused/applicant.

After part arguments, ld. Counsel for
accused/applicant is seeking withdrawal of the present bail
application.
Ld. Addl. PP has no objection for withdrawal of the
bail application.
In view of the submissions made by ld. Counsel for
accused/applicant, the present bail application stands
dismissed as withdrawn.

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1725/20.
STATE VS RAHUL BHARDWAJ.
FIR NO.347/2020.
PS: BAWANA.
U/S 324/341/336/506/34 IPC.
09.06.2020
Today present application for grant of bail U/s.438
Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Rahul Bhardwaj, is
placed before me in pursuance of Order No.1911319168/F2/(9)Judl./
COVID/North/RC/2020 dated 29.05.2020 of ld. District & Sessions
Judge (North), Rohini, Delhi.
Present : Sh. J.S. Malik, ld. Addl. PP for State
Shri Arpit Bhalla, ld. Counsel for applicant.
Reply to the bail application filed by the IO.
After part arguments counsel for the applicant/accused
vehemently submits that there are CCTV footage of the incident.
Let the IO shall make submission about the CCTV footage
and if so, the same be submitted for perusal.
Relist on 16.06.2020 for compliance.
ASJ/Duty Judge: North
09.06.2020
STATE VS ABHISHEK.
FIR NO.0443/16.
PS: BHALSWA DAIRY.
U/S – 302/308/323/452/34 IPC.
09.06.2020
Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Abhishek, is placed
before me in pursuance of Order No.1911319168/F2/(9)Judl./
Shri Ashwani Saxena, ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.
Report from the Jail received. The conduct of the applicant/
accused has been shown satisfactory, however, the report of the IO be
called regarding any involvement of the applicant/accused in any other
criminal matter.
Relist on 11.06.2020.
09.06.2020
STATE VS. TEJ SINGH @ SUMIT.
FIR NO.9/18.
PS: ALIPUR.
U/S 302/365/396/412/120B/34 IPC.
09.06.2020

Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Tej Singh @ Sumit, is
Shri Sanjay Mandawat, ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.
It is submitted that the case of the applicant registered
under section 396/365/412/120B/34 IPC. It has been further submitted
that applicant/accused is in JC since 14.01.2018 two years and he is not
involved in any other criminal case. It is further submitted that
applicant's wife has been residing in the joint family and but due to
lockdown his elder brother and his family left her and she is alone with
her new born baby and facing so many livelihood problems, It is further
submitted that applicant/accused is innocent and is falsely implicated in
this case and nothing has been recovered from him.
Contd....2/
:2:
Report from the Jail received and perused. It is mentioned
in the report that conduct of the applicant in jail is satisfactory. Report
of the IO has also been received wherein it is mentioned that
applicant/accused is not involved in any other criminal case.
Ld. Addl. PP submits that case is squarely covered as per
order dated 18.05.2020 passed by the High Powered Committed of the
Hon'ble High Court.
Therefore, in view of totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case, the applicant/accused be released on interim bail for 45
days on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of 50,000/ to the
satisfaction of concerned Jail Superintendent subject to the
following conditions:
(1) That he shall not indulge into similar offence or any other
offence in the event of release on bail;
(2) That he shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(3) That in case of change of his residential address, he shall
intimate the court about the same;
(4) That he shall maintain social distancing at the public
places i.e he shall maintain the distance of at least 1.5 meter from
every other person;
(5) That he will not enjoy any marriage function or any other
function or any public gathering during the period of this interim
bail; and
Contd....3/
:3:
(6) That he will surrender before the concerned authorities after
the expiry of interim bail of 7 (seven) days from the day of his
release.
Applicant/accused be released from JC if not required
in any other case. A copy of the order be sent to Jail Superintendent
through dispatch rider deputed in this court by the Jail authority.
09.06.2020
STATE VS RAJESH @ ANR.
FIR NO.484/19.
PS: ALIPUR.
U/S 307/34 IPC & 25/27 ARMS ACT.
09.06.2020
Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Rajesh, is placed before
me in pursuance of Order No.1911319168/F2/(9)Judl./
Sh. Rakesh Chahar, ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.
It is submitted by ld. Counsel for applicant that he was
arrested on 12.03.2020 and since then he is in JC. It is further submitted
that on 29.12.2019 the complainant Sangeeta was coming alongwith her
husband and one helper from village Palla, Delhi and when they
reached in the market in villlage Bakhatawarpur and happened to get
the tyres balanced and aligned from the shop of her husband\s friend. In
the meantime, a white car cam e and stopped and four persons alighted
from the car and started firing on the complainant's husband and
complainant tried to intervene due to she also sustained injuries. It is
Contd:2:
:2:
further submitted that thereafter a call was made at 100 number and
police arrived and they were removed to the hospital. Allegations
levelled against the applicant/accused are false and he has been wrongly
arrested in this case. He was never participated in the incident.
Therefore, no role has been scribed upon the applicant/accused. It is
further submitted that in view of the outbreak of covid19 pandemic the
applicant seeks interim on humanitarian grounds. However, in the
prayer of the application the applicant/accused seeking regular bail.
Ld. Addl. PP objects the application with the ground that
applicant had participated in the grim as he was driving the motorbike
upon which shooters was riding as pillion rider and later on those
shooters hit the injured indiscriminately by firing upon him and by
causing two/three other persons.
It is submitted on behalf of applicant / accused that he is in
JC since last three months and except disclosure statement nothing is
against the present applicant/accused. It is further submitted that the
applicant/accused has never involved in any other criminal case and he
has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Ld. Addl. APP submits that the applicant/accused cannot
be identified by any other person as he was on motorbike at some
Contd:3:
:3:
distance as he was not present at the spot of the actual firing, therefore,
his identification by the person who are present at the spot is not
possible, however, during disclosure statement, he has disclosed his
involvement which is identical to the investigation carried out by the IO
till now.
Since, three persons are injured and the involvement of the
applicant/accused is there. The allegations are serious in nature. Thus,
keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find
any merit in the present bail application and the same dismissed.
09.06.2020
STATE VS. MOHD. SAHID KHAN.
FIR NO.561/17.
PS: BHALSWA DAIRY.
U/S 363/376/506 IPC.
09.06.2020
Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Mohd. Sajid Khan, is
Sh. Ansar Ahmad, ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.
This is the case regarding the sexual offence.
Let notice be issued to the complainant through IO. The IO
is directed to ensure the presence of the complainant through video
conferencing.
IO shall issue written notice to the complainant for
12.06.2020.
On request the date is changed from 12.06.2020 to
15.06.2020 and hence, earlier date i.e. 12.06.2020 stands cancelled.
09.06.2020
STATE VS. SALIM
FIR NO.681/19.
PS: NARELA INDL. AREA.
U/S 324/307/34 IPC.
09.06.2020
Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Salim, is placed before
Sh. Ansar Ahmad, ld. Counsel for applicant.
It is submitted by ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused that
he is 19 years of age and he is not involved in any other matter. It is
further submitted that the grand father of the accused has been suffering
from various ailments I.e. TB, high blood pressure etc. and he is under
medical supervision in BJRM Hospital, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. His
condition is going to worse day by day.
Reply filed by the IO perused.
Ld. Addl. PP objects the application on the ground that
admittedly earlier bail application has been dismissed and no specific
grounds is made out for interim bail. Admittedly the case is not covered
Contd:2:
:2:
under the HPC guidelines. The applicant is in JC since 29.01.2020 and
no specific ground is made out for interim bail. Admittedly there are
other family members of the applicant/accused to look after the
grandfather of the applicant/accused. Thus, keeping in view of such
facts, I find no ground to grant the applicant/accused on interim bail and
accordingly, the application is dismissed.
09.06.2020
STATE VS. MUKESH.
FIR NO.677/19.
PS: S.P. BADLI.
U/S – 392/394/397/34 IPC.
09.06.2020
Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Mukesh, is placed before
Shri Prem Prakash Upadhyay, ld. Counsel for applicant/
accused.
It is submitted that the applicant/accused may be released
on interim bail as per the recommendations of HPC Committee.
However, the case has been registered under section 392/394/397/34.
During arguments, ld. Addl. PP submits that there is
nothing has been mentioned regarding Section 397 IPC in HPC
guidelines. In Section 397 IPC maximum punishment is 7 years,
therefore, in my considered view, no ground for releasing the
applicant/accused on interim bail is made out. Moreover, on perusal of
the FIR, there are serious allegations against the applicant/accused
when he along with other coaccused used blade to injured the applicant
Contd.....2/
....2/
and thereafter they robbed Rs.10,000/ along with DL and other

valuables. Thus, keeping in view of above facts and circumstances
alongwith seriousness of allegations mentioned in FIR, I do not find any
merit in the application and accordingly, the application is dismissed.
09.06.2020
STATE VS. RAMESH CHAND.
FIR NO.221/20.
PS:NARELA.
U/S 354D/308/452/34 IPC.
09.06.2020
Today present application for grant of anticipatory bail
U/s.438 Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Ramesh Chand,
is placed before me in pursuance of Order No.1911319168/F2/
(9)Judl./ COVID/North/RC/2020 dated 29.05.2020 of ld. District &
Sessions Judge (North), Rohini, Delhi.
Sh. Neeraj Bansal, ld. Counsel for applicant
Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused is seeing permission to
withdraw the present bail application.
Ld. Addl. PP is not objecting the same.
Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed as
withdrawn.
09.06.2020
STATE VS. JAI PAL.
FIR NO.221/20.
PS:NARELA.
U/S 354D/308/452/34 IPC.
09.06.2020
U/s.438 Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Jai Pal, is
Sh. Neeraj Bansal, ld. Counsel for applicant
Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused is seeing permission to
withdraw the present bail application.
Ld. Addl. PP is not objecting the same.
Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed as
withdrawn.
09.06.2020
STATE VS. JITENDER KUMAR.
FIR NO.83/20.
PS: NARELA.
U/S 392/397/411/34 IPC.
09.06.2020
Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Jitender Kumar, is
Shri Jitendra Kumar Kalson, ld. Counsel for applicant/
accused.
Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused has argued that earlier
first bail application was dismissed and now it is the second bail
application. At the time of deciding his first bail application, the charge
sheet was not filed and now the challan has been filed. He further
submits that in view of the fact that there is change of circumstance, the
challan may be called for disposal of the bail application from the
concerned court.
Heard. Request of ld. Counsel allowed.
Put up on 12.06.2020.
09.06.2020
STATE VS. ANWAR.
FIR NO.27/15.
PS: S.P. BADLI.
U/S 302/201/120B/34 IPC.
09.06.2020
Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Anwar, is placed before
Sh. Vijay Kumar, ld. Counsel for applicant
Ld. Counsel for applicant seeks permission to withdraw the
application.
Heard. Allowed.
Application is dismissed as withdrawn.
09.06.2020
STATE VS. ANWAR.
FIR NO.27/15.
PS: S.P. BADLI.
U/S 302/201/120B/34 IPC.
09.06.2020
Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Anwar, is placed before
Sh. Vijay Kumar, ld. Counsel for applicant
Ld. Counsel for applicant seeks permission to withdraw the
application.
Heard. Allowed.
Application is dismissed as withdrawn.
09.06.2020
STATE VS. MD. ABRAR KHAN.
FIR NO.906/17.
PS: SHAHBAD DAIRY.
U/S 420/468/471/506/120B IPC.
09.06.2020
Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Md. Abrar Khan, is
Sh. S.P. Singh, ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.
It is submitted by ld. Counsel for applicant/accused that the
applicant is a senior citizen and aged about 58 years and suffering from
old age diseases i.e. hypertension, heart ailment and sugar. It is further
submitted that he is in JC since 17.02.2020 and he is not involved in
any other criminal case. It is further submitted that this case is under the
guidelines passed by HPC of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
The present bail application is moved on the ground of
medical and the report has already been filed by the jail authorities. As
per the said report, the applicant/accused is receiving all medicines
from the jail dispensary and his condition is stable. On 03.06.2020, the
Contd.....2/
:2:
applicant was seen by Psychiatry SR for complaints of lower mood,
anxiety and worries and he was examined and necessary treatment has
been started.
Ld. Addl. PP submits that regarding the offence against the
applicant/ accused nothing has been mentioned in the HPC guidelines.
The applicant/accused is in JC since 17.02.2020 and the
proper treatment has been provided and he is receiving medicines from
dispensary. Thus, keeping in view of above fact, I find no ground to
release the applicant/accused on interim bail at this stage as the
allegations in the FIR against the applicant/accused are of serious in
nature.
Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.
09.06.2020
STATE VS. KISHAN KUMAR @ TONI.
FIR NO.20/17.
PS: BHALSWA DAIRY.
U/S376/120B IPC.
09.06.2020
Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Kishan Kumar @ Toni,
Sh. L.S. Saini, ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.
Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused prays for adjournment.
Allowed.
Put up on 10.06.2020.
09.06.2020
STATE VS. MANGAL.
FIR NO.135/20.
PS: S.P. BADLI.
U/S 10 OF POCSO & 323/354B IPC.
09.06.2020
Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Mangal, is placed before
Sh. Piyush Gautam, ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.
Ld. Addl. PP submits upon the information supplied by the
Niab Court regarding the service of the notice upon the complainant has
not been received so far. SHO has not reported about the same.
Let the concerned ACP shall ensure the service of notice to
the complainant as per previous direction.
Now put up for appearance of the complainant through
video conferencing / report on 11.06.2020.
09.06.2020
STATE VS. AMIT DAHIYA @ BUNTY.
FIR NO.139/18.
PS: ALIPUR.
U/S302/365/392/397/411/120B/34 IPC.
09.06.2020
Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Amit Dahiya @ Bunty, is
Shri Anil Rana, ld. Counsel for applicant.
There is nothing has been mentioned regarding the
previous involvement of the applicant/accused, if any.
IO shall submit fresh report mentioning therein such
relevant facts. Moreover, the conduct report of the applicant/accused be
also obtained from the concerned Jail Superintendent.
Now, to come up for compliance and arguments on
12.06.2020.
09.06.2020
STATE VS. MANOJ SEHRAWAT.
FIR NO.427/12.
PS: NARELA.
U/S 302/364/201/404/120B IPC
09.06.2020
Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Manoj Sehrawat, is
Shri Aditya Malik, ld. Counsel for applicant.
After part arguments ld. Counsel for applicant/accused is
seeking for withdrawal of the present application.
Ld. Addl. PP has not objected to the same.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed as withdrawn.
09.06.2020
STATE VS. RAJESH KUMAR @ SURAJ.
FIR NO.108/14.
PS: PRASHANT VIHAR.
U/S302/328/365/397/201/34 IPC.
09.06.2020
Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Rajesh Kumar @ Suraj,
Sh. Ankur Sharma, ld. Cunsel for applicant/accused.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant seeks some time to make
statement.
On the request, the matter is adjourned for next date.
Put up on 11.06.2020.
09.06.2020
STATE VS. ROHIT.
FIR NO.0537/19.
PS: BHALSWA DAIRY.
U/S392/397/411/34 IPC.
09.06.2020
Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Rohit, is placed before
Sh. Yogesh Pandey, ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.
The previous order has not been complied with by the IO.
It is already 2:55 P.M.
Let SHO shall ensure the compliance of the previous order
on 11.06.2020.
09.06.2020
STATE VS. JAI PRAKASH @ PRAKASH.
FIR NO.69/18.
PS: SWAROOP NAGAR.
U/S 302/328/34 IPC.
09.06.2020
Today present application for grant of interim bail
U/s.439 Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Jai Prakash @
Prakash, is placed before me in pursuance of Order No.19113
19168/F2/(9)Judl./ COVID/North/RC/2020 dated 29.05.2020 of ld.
District & Sessions Judge (North), Rohini, Delhi.
Sh. M.R. Chanchal, ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused.
Report of the Jail Superintendent has been received,
however, report from the IO/SHO regarding the previous involvement
of the applicant/accused in any other case has not been received. It is
already 4:30 P.M.
Let the same be filed on 12.06.2020.
The concerned ACP shall ensure the compliance of the
order.
09.06.2020
STATE VS. GOLU.
FIR NO.584/18.
PS: SHAHBAD DAIRY.
U/S302/201/34 IPC.
09.06.2020
Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Golu, is placed before
Sh. Arvind Kumar, ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.
IO shall file additional reply stating therein the
involvement of the applicant if any in any other case.
Let the report be called from the Jail Superintendent
regarding the conduct of the applicant/accused in jail.
Put up on 12.06.2020 for compliance.
09.06.2020
STATE VS. MITHUN.
FIR NO.025/18.
PS: KNK MARG.
U/S 354/354A/354B/323/363/376/511 IPC & 10 OF POCSO.
09.06.2020
Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Mithun, is placed before
Sh. Kanwarpreet Singh, ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.
The present application is under the provisions of u/s. 10
POCSO Act and u/s. 354/354A/354B/323/363/376/511 IPC.
IO is directd to issue written notice to the complainant/
guardian of the complainant and shall ensure the presence of
complainant or her guardian through video conferencing.
Put up for compliance on 15.06.2020.
09.06.2020
STATE VS SANJAY @ RAJBIR @ SAINI.
FIR NO.277/19.
PS:S.P. BADLI.
U/S 302/201 IPC.
09.06.2020
Today present application for grant of interim bail
U/s.439 Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Sanjay @
Rajbir Saini, is placed before me in pursuance of Order No.19113
Shri Tarun Gehlot, ld. Counsel for applicant/asccused.
The present application is an interim bail application
moved on the ground of illness of son of the applicant/accused.
In the reply of the IO it is specifically mentioned that, 'The
accused moved the present application on the ground to take care of his
son as he claimed that his son is suffering from jaundice. In this regard
it is submitted that the son of the applicant visited Girdhar Hospital,
Khanna Hospital, Sonipat, Haryana with complaint of vomiting, pain in
abdomen and loose motion, however, there was no fever which is self
contradictory. As per the repcord of the hospital he visited OPD and
treated accordingly but he was not admitted”.
:2:
:2:
This court is of the considered view that no report of illness
of jaundice is there. However, as per IO report, he is only suffering
from loose motion and fever.
Applicant is involved in murder case.
Thus, keeping in view of such circumstance, I do not find
merit in the application and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
09.06.2020
STATE VS ASHISH KUMAR SHARMA.
FIR NO.0466/19.
PS: NARELA.
U/S – 498A/306/34 IPC.
09.06.2020
U/s.438 Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Ashish Kumar
Sharma, is placed before me in pursuance of Order No.19113
Sh. Abhimanyu Kaushik, ld. Counsel for applicant/
accused
Sh. Hardeep Kaushik, ld. Counsel for complainant.
After part arguments, this court specifically asked from the
counsel for the complainant about the role of the applicant and relations
mentioned in the present FIR. Ld. Counsel for complainant could not
mention any specific role of the applicant/accused mentioned in the
FIR.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused submits on the very
next day of the death of the deceased as per the statement given before
ld. SDM by the father of the deceased no grievance was there against
any of the accused. After one month, mother of the deceased made a
complaint upon which the present FIR is registered.
….2/
But against in the said complaint also, no specific

allegation against the present applicant/accused is there.
At this stage, ld. Counsel for the complainant seeks
adjournment to appear and submit arguments. Let him do so.
Now to come up for further arguments on 16.06.2020. Till
then no arrest.
09.06.2020
STATE VS NISHA.
FIR NO.0466/19.
PS: NARELA.
U/S – 498A/306/34 IPC.
09.06.2020
U/s.438 Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Nisha, is placed
accused
On the vehement request of ld. Counsel the complainant,
the application is adjourned for 16.06.2020 alongwith connected bail
application. Till then no arrest.
09.06.2020
STATE VS MOHIT.
FIR NO.0466/19.
PS: NARELA.
U/S – 498A/306/34 IPC.
09.06.2020
U/s.438 Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Mohit, is placed
accused
09.06.2020
STATE VS JYOTI.
FIR NO.0466/19.
PS: NARELA.
U/S – 498A/306/34 IPC.
09.06.2020
U/s.438 Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Jyoti, is placed
accused
09.06.2020
STATE VS KITAB KAUR.
FIR NO.0466/19.
PS: NARELA.
U/S – 498A/306/34 IPC.
09.06.2020
U/s.438 Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of applicant/accused Kitab Kaur, is
accused
09.06.2020

Bail Application

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bail Application

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bail application No.

Arguments heard on the application on

The present application U/s 439 Cr.PC for grant of

Ld. Addl PP opposed the bail application on the

(Jitendra Kumar Mishra)

Arguments heard on the application on

The present application U/s 439 Cr.PC for grant of

Keeping in view the fact that only 1.5 kg of ganja is

(Jitendra Kumar Mishra)

Arguments heard on the application on

The present application U/s 439 Cr.PC for grant of

(Jitendra Kumar Mishra)

Arguments heard on the application on

Ld. Addl PP opposed the bail application submitting

(Jitendra Kumar Mishra)

Present : Sh. J.S. Malik, ld. Addl. PP for State.

Today, the matter is listed for pronouncement of

An affidavit has been filed on behalf of complainant

(Jitendra Kumar Mishra)

This is an application for grant of bail moved on behalf of

Present : Sh. J.S. Malik, ld. Addl. PP for State.

Arguments heard through video conferencing.

(Jitendra Kumar Mishra)

This is an application for grant of interim bail moved on

Present : Sh. J.S. Malik, ld. Addl. PP for State.

Arguments heard through video conferencing

Report from IO is received. However, report from

(Jitendra Kumar Mishra)

This is an application for grant of bail moved on behalf of

Present : Sh. J.S. Malik, ld. Addl. PP for State.

Arguments heard through video conferencing

After part arguments, ld. Counsel for

(Jitendra Kumar Mishra)

This is an application for grant of bail moved on behalf of

Present : Sh. J.S. Malik, ld. Addl. PP for State.

Arguments heard through video conferencing.

(Jitendra Kumar Mishra)

Today present application for grant of bail U/s.439

and thereafter they robbed Rs.10,000/­ along with DL and other

But against in the said complaint also, no specific

You might also like

and thereafter they robbed Rs.10,000/ along with DL and other