INTHECOURTOFDr.KAMINILAU:ADDL.

SESSIONS
JUDGEII(NORTHWEST):ROHINICOURTS:DELHI
BailApplicationNo.5744/RC
StateVs.NarenderPalKashyap
FIR:37/2013
PS:VijayVihar
U/S:376/506IPC
9.7.2014
Present:

Ld.Addl.PPfortheStatewithIOSIAmitKumar.
Sh.ChanderKant,Advocatefortheapplicant/accused.

Pursuanttothedirectionsissuedbythiscourton4.7.2014

the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Outer) is not present.

Applicationforexemptionisfiledonhisbehalfwhichisvague,non
specific and unsatisfactory raising no ground justifying his
exemption. Ld. Defence Counsel has objected to nonappearance
stating that the application has been filed in a routine manner
highlightingthecasualapproachofseniorofficersofthepolicequa
courtcasesandissuesrelatingtocomplainantandstatutoryrightof
citizens.TheAddl.PPalsosubmitsthathehasneitherforwardedthe
requestnorsubscribestosuchaconductbeinganoutrightviolation
ofprovisionsoftheIndianPenalCode. Hefurthersubmitsthathe
haddulybriefedtheconcernedofficerandsuitablyadvisedhimon
the subject in the meeting with him yesterday evening when the
DeputyCommissionerofPolicehadcometobriefhiminthemanner
andalsowantedtocallonthisCourtwhichrequestwasincidentally

declined by the Court inviewofthepending court case. I have

consideredthesubmissionsmade. Inthebackgroundofwhathas
beenhighlightedtheabsenceoftheofficerappeartobedeliberate.
Theexemptionrequestisherebydeclined. Caseispassedoverfor
appearance of the District Head before this court along with the
reportasaforesaid.
Beawaited.
(Dr.KaminiLau)
ASJ/NWII,Rohini/9.7.2014
2:00PM
Present:

Ld.Addl.PPfortheStatewithIOSIAmitKumar.
Sh.ChanderKant,Advocatefortheapplicant/accused.
At this stage, Sh. Vikramjit Singh, DCP (Outer) has

appearedalongwithACP/PGCellKailashChandra.
ReporthasbeenfiledbytheDCP. Heardargumentson
thebailapplication.ThecopyoftheDNAreporthasbeenplacedon
recordaccordingtowhichtheprofilegeneratedfromtheexhibitsof
prosecutrix have been found to be dissimilar from the profile
generatedfromtheexhibitsoftheapplicant/accused.
Adetailreportwithregardtotheothercases(asmanyas
nineinnumber)hasalsobeenplacedonrecord.Itisadmittedbythe
Ld.DefenceCounselthattheFIRNo.341/13(asprovided)hasbeen
found to be wrongly mentioned. As per the report, in FIR No.
357/13, the allegations have been found to be incorrect and the

complainantandothershavenowbeenchargedsheetedunderSection
182/120BIPC. InFIRNo.37/13andalsointhepresentcase,the
DNAprofilesarenegative.InsofarasFIRNo.177/13isconcerned,
itisUntraced.TheDy.CommissionerofPoliceis,however,unable
to provide details of investigations in FIR No. 321/2013, under
Section376D/120B/34IPCanddetailsofForensicEvidencetherein
notbeingbriefedbytheofficersoftheconcernedPoliceStation.
TheDeputyCommissionerofPolice(Outer)submitsthat
he was not aware of the allegations made by the father of the
applicant/accusedinthecomplaintmadebyhimtotheSHOdueto
whichreasonnoinquirycouldbeheldtoascertainthecorrectnessof
theallegationsmadeinthesameasregardstheallegationsmadein
same. Thecopyofthecomplaintdated3.6.2014,whichisalready
availablewiththeSHOconcerned,isdirectedtobehandedoverto
the Dy. Commissioner of Police (Outer) after which not only the
allegationsmadeasagainstRavinderThakurandothersbutalsothe
statusandroleofapplicant/accusedNarenderPalKashyap,Sunil,
Vikram @ Sonu, Sunil S/o Phool Singh and Ishwar Singh, are
requiredtobeinquiredinto,inthelightoftheallegationsmadeinthe
complaintandhighlightedbeforethisCourt.
Imayobservethat,insofarthemeaningofterm'Victim
of Crime' is concerned, the Indianlegislature doesnot definethe
termunderanylawandtheetymologicalmeaningofphrase'Victim
ofCrime'suggeststhatitwouldencompass:

1. Anyonesufferingphysical,emotionalorfinancialharmasa
directresultofaCrime.
2. Spousesandchildrenofthepersonwhohassuffered.
3. Parents,fosterparents,siblings,guardiansorothercustodians
ofminorvictims,mentallyorphysicallyincapacitatedvictims,
orvictimsofhomicide.
In this regard reliance can be placed upon the United
Nations General Assembly Declaration of Basic Principles of
Justice for Victim and Abuse of Power adopted in November
1985,whichthroughArticle1&2givesexhaustivedefinitionofthe
phrase:
Article 1. "Victims" means persons who,
individuallyorcollectively,havesufferedharm,
includingphysicalormentalinjury,emotional
suffering, economic loss or substantial
impairment of their fundamental rights,
throughactsoromissionsthatareinviolation
of criminal laws operative within Member
States, including those laws prescribing
criminalabuseofpower.
Article2. Apersonmaybeconsideredavictim,
underthisDeclaration,regardlessofwhetherthe
perpetrator is identified, apprehended,
prosecuted or convicted and regardless of the
familialrelationshipbetweentheperpetratorand
thevictim.Theterm"victim"alsoincludes,where
appropriate,theimmediatefamilyordependents
of the direct victim and persons who have
sufferedharmininterveningtoassistvictimsin

distressortopreventvictimization.
AcombineeffectoftheseArticlesprobablyencompasses
everythingthatoughttohavebeenthepartofdefinitionofthephrase
andwouldincludepersonswhoarevictimsoffalseaccusationand
havesufferedincarcerationonaccountofthesame,sincewrongly
arrestonfalseaccusationisanoffenceunderIndianPenalCodeand
hence the persons who have suffered legal proceedings and
detentiononaccountoffalseaccusationswouldbecoveredunder
Clause (3) of Section 357A of Code of Criminal Procedure
specificallywheresuchvictimsrequirerehabilitationonaccount
of their social or financial position. In so far as the term
'Compensation' is concerned it means something given in
recompense i.e. equivalent rendered. The legislative framework in
Indiaregardingcompensationtovictimofcrimecanbetracethrough
two major legislations i.e. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and
Probation of Offenders Act and Constitution of India. There are
repeatedobservationsoftheHon'bleApexCourtandvariousHigh
Courtswhohavebeenliberalingrantingcompensationtothevictim
ofcrimewhichincludepersonshavingsuffereddetentiononaccount
offalseaccusation.Hon'bleMr.JusticeShamshulIslamJafri,Retd.
Judge,HighCourtofJudicature,Allahabad(aneminentjurist)while
expressinghisviewsonthesubjecthasobservedthatifthecourtfind
that the person before the court are victim of crime of false

accusation,thecourtcanorderpaymentofcompensationtothe
accused by the complainant, the first informant or the
prosecutingagencyasthecasemaybe.InthecaseofPremChand
(Paniwala) Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1981 SC 613,
Hon'bleMr.JusticeV.R.KrishnaIyer,whilespeakingfortheBench
hadobserved:
......InJustice,JusticesandJusticingandlikewise
inthePoliceandPolicing,thePeriltothejudicial
processisbestlefttoimaginationifprofessional
perjurersliketheselfconfessedPaniwalaarekept
captivebythePolice,tobepressedintoservicefor
proving "cases". Courts, trusting the Police may
actonapparentlyveracioustestimonyandsentence
peopleintoprison.Thecommunity,satisfiedwith
suchconvictions,maywellbelievethatalliswell
withlawandorder.Wecondemn,inthestrongest
terms, the systematic pollution of the judicial
process and the consequent threat to human
rights of innocent persons. We hope that the
higher authorities in the Department who,
apparently,arenotawareofthenefariousgoings
on at the lesser levels will immediately take
measurestostampoutthisunscrupulousmenace.
The petitioner's reply affidavit makes startling
disclosuresaboutthepolicemethodsofimplicating
innocent people. However, the version of the
petitionercanhardlybeswallowedsinceheisa
selfconfessedperjurer.Nevertheless,itisnottoo
muchtoaskGovernmenttotakeeffectivemeasures
to prevent Policemethodsstrayingintovice.We
hopefully remind the State about what Justice

Brandieis once observed: [Olmstead v. U. S.

(1928)277US438:
Crime is contagious. If the government
becomesalawbreaker,itbreedscontemptfor
law".... "Todeclarethatintheadministration
ofthecriminallawtheendjustifiesthemeans
to declare that the government may commit
crimesinordertosecurethe convictionofa
private criminalwould bring terrible
retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine
thisCourtmustresolutelysetitsface.
InthesameAmericandecisionwehavejust mentioned
JusticeHolmesobserved:
Wehavetochoose,andformypartIthinkita
less evil that some criminals should escape
than that the Government should play an
ignoblepart....

Hon'bleMr.JusticeS.Murlidhar,JudgeDelhiHighCourt
inthecaseofPrempal&Ors.Vs.theCommissionerofPolice&
Ors. in Writ Petition (C) No.11079/2006 decided on 25.3.2010,
whilecullingouttheobservationsmadebytheHon'bleApexCourt
andvariousHighCourtsintheabovecasesandalsointhecasesof
NilabatiBeheraVs.StateofOrissareportedinSIR1993SC1960;
StateofMadhyaPradeshVs.ShyamsunderTrivedi reportedin
(1995)4SCC262;D.K.BasuVs.StateofWestBengalreportedin
(1007) 1 SCC 416; Mrs. Sudha Rasheed Vs. Union of India
reported in 1995 (1) SCALE 77; Tasleema Vs. State (NCT of

Delhi)reportedin161(2009)DLT660;DalbirSinghVs.Stateof
U.P. reportedin AIR2009SC1674;hasrevisitedtheentirelawin
thejudgmentandthelawasitemergesisthatfundamentalrightofa
citizen of this country cannot be violated except according to
procedureestablishedbylaw. Itisforthisreasonthatitbecomes
obligatedfortheCourttoensurethatthereisnoabuseandmisuseof
theSpecialLawsrelatingtowomenandtodealwithsuchcasesina
realistic manner and with the sensitivity which they deserve
otherwise the common man may lose faith in the judiciary itself,
whichwillbeasadday.
Therehastobesomechecklistandsafeguardsdevisedto
preventsuchanabuseofSpecialLegislationinfavourofwomen.
The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Outer) Sh. Vikramjit Singh
whoispresentintheCourthassuggestedthatoneofthesafeguard
which he can think of, is that in such cases where there exists a
history of civil and otherdisputesincludingpropertydisputesand
there are repeated complaints where allegations involve offence
againstwomen,thenasamatterofabundantcautionthearrestofthe
accusedshouldbeafterapplicationofmindbytheseniorofficers.
The Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the issue regarding the
abuseofSpecialLawsrelatingtooffencesagainstwomenismuch
widerinramificationandduedeliberationattheseniorlevelwould
be necessitated. He submits that if granted time the necessary
safeguardssocontemplatedcanbedeliberatedandplacedbeforethe

court.
IhaveconsideredtherivalcontentionsandImayobserve
that in the present case there are serious concerns of this Court
regardingthemannerinwhichrepeatedFIRshavebeenfiledoverthe
lasttwoyears,majorityofwhichrelatetooffencesagainstwomen.
Whethertheallegationsmadeinthevariouscomplaintsonthebasis
ofwhichtheFIRshavebeenregistered,arecorrectornotisanaspect
yet to be adjudicated upon by the competent courts but in both
eventualitiestheissueinvolveisserious.Incaseifthereareincidents
ofrepeatedassaultsonagroupofpersonsresidinginanareawhich
arefoundtobecorrect,thenitreflectsatotalfailureofthelocal
police to protect the residents of the area. But in case if these
repeatedcomplaints/FIRsareonthebasisoffalsegroundsthenthe
issue involved is relating to abuse of Special Laws relating to
offencesagainstwomenwhichonlydilutesthecauseingenuinecases
and hencetheobligationtoensurethat suchanabuseischecked.
ThiscourtishighlyappreciateofthesuggestiongivenbytheDeputy
Commissioner of Police (Outer) and it would be desirable that in
cases involving property, civil or other disputes between various
parties there should be due application of mind at a senior level
before the arrest is affected. This, however, does not mean that
undueleverageisgiventotheoffenderbutisonlyaRuleofCaution
thataftertheregistrationofthecaseandbeforethearrestisaffected
insuchcases,theseniorofficerofthedistrictapplieshismindtothe

necessityanddesirabilityofsuchanarrestwhichoughttobemade
onlyaftergrantofaspecificpermissioninthisregard,whichshould
bedonetoavoidallegationsofconnivanceorbiasatthelocallevel
andofillegaldetentiononthebasisoffalseaccusations.
In the present case keeping in view the DNA
Fingerprinting Report showing that the profile generated from the
exhibits of prosecutrix have been found to be dissimilar from the
profile generated from the exhibits of the applicant/ accused and
keepinginviewthehistoryofdisputebetweentheparties,Iadmitthe
applicant/accusedNarenderPalKashyaptobailonhisfurnishing
personalbondtothetuneofRs.50,000/withonelocalsuretyoflike
amountontheconditionthatheshallnotleaveDelhiwithoutprior
permission and shall report to the ACP (Vigilance) on every last
SaturdaytillfurtherordersbytheLd.TrialCourt.
Theapplicationisaccordinglydisposedoff.

(Dr.KaminiLau)
ASJ/NWII,Rohini/9.7.2014

INTHECOURTOFDr.KAMINILAU:ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGEII(NORTHWEST):ROHINICOURTS:DELHI
BailApplicationNo.5852/RC
StateVs.TribhuvanNarainSharma
FIR:NotKnown
PS:VijayVihar
U/S:NotKnown
9.7.2014
Present:

Ld.Addl.PPfortheStatewithIOSIAmitDahiya.
Sh.SatishK.Sansi,Advocatefortheapplicant/accused.
Heardargumentsontheapplicationforgrantofbailunder

Section438Cr.PCfiledonbehalfoftheapplicant/accused.Ihave
also perused the report filed by the Investigating Officer. I am
informedthatnoFIRhasbeenregisteredtilldateinthepresentcase.
In this background, in the eventuality of registration of FIR and
apprehensionofarrest,asevenworkingdaysnoticebegiventothe
applicant/accusedTribhuvanNarainSharmaontheaddressgivenon
the application / official address of his counsel, to enable the
applicant / accused to avail his legal remedies. The application is
accordinglydisposedoff.

(Dr.KaminiLau)
ASJ/NWII,Rohini/9.7.2014

INTHECOURTOFDr.KAMINILAU:ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGEII(NORTHWEST):ROHINICOURTS:DELHI
BailApplicationNo.5854to5860
StateVs. 1.VikramSinghChauhan
2.RajdhanChauhan
3.SureshDevi
4.Deepak
5.PraveshKumar@Bobby
6.SangitaDevi@Geeta
7.Ravita.
FIR:Notknown
PS:Mangolpuri
U/S:498A/406/34IPC
9.7.2014
Present:

Ld.Addl.PPfortheStatewithIOSIJaspal.
Sh.RavinderSharma,Advocateforalltheapplicants/
accused.
Thebailapplicationnos. 5854 to 5860 aretakenuptogether

for hearing as they pertain to the same case. Heard arguments on the
applications. I have also perused the report filed by the Investigating
Officer.I aminformedthatnoFIR hasbeenregisteredtilldateinthe
presentcase.Inthisbackground,intheeventualityofregistrationofFIR
andapprehensionofarrest,asevenworkingdaysnoticebegiventothe
applicants/accusednamelyVikramSinghChauhan,RajdhanChauhan,
SureshDevi,Deepak,PraveshKumar@Bobby,SangitaDevi@Geeta,
Ravita.ontheaddressesgivenontheapplications/officialaddressoftheir
counsel,toenabletheapplicants/accusedtoavailtheirlegalremedies.
Theapplicationsareaccordinglydisposedoff.
(Dr.KaminiLau)
ASJ/NWII,Rohini/9.7.2014

INTHECOURTOFDr.KAMINILAU:ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGEII(NORTHWEST):ROHINICOURTS:DELHI
BailApplicationNo.5868/RC
StateVs.DeepakKumar
FIR:364/14
PS:RaniBagh
U/S:506/509IPC
9.7.2014
Present:

Ld.Addl.PPfortheStatewithIO/WSIUpkarKaur.
Sh.ChandraGuptaMaurya,Advocatefortheapplicant/
accused.
Heardargumentsontheapplicationforgrantofbailunder

Section439Cr.PCfiledonbehalfoftheapplicant/accused.Ihave
alsoperusedthereportfiledbytheInvestigatingOfficer.
Theallegationsagainsttheapplicant/accusedareserious.
During investigations, the provisions of Section 376 and 354D
IndianPenalCodehavealsobeenaddedapartfromSectionunder
Section506/509IPC.Chargesheethasalreadybeenfiled.Underthe
given circumstances, I am not inclined to intervene till the
examinationofthevictiminthecourt. Theapplicationishereby
dismissed.
(Dr.KaminiLau)
ASJ/NWII,Rohini/9.7.2014

INTHECOURTOFDr.KAMINILAU:ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGEII(NORTHWEST):ROHINICOURTS:DELHI
BailApplicationNo.5870/RC
StateVs.KantiPrashad
FIR:Notknown
PS:Mangolpuri
U/S:Notknown
9.7.2014
Present:

Ld.Addl.PPfortheStatewithIOSIJaspalSingh.
Sh.M.S.Negi,Advocatefortheapplicant/accused.
Heardargumentsontheapplicationforgrantofbailunder

Section438Cr.PCfiledonbehalfoftheapplicant/accused.Ihave
also perused the report filed by the Investigating Officer. I am
informedthatnoFIRhasbeenregisteredtilldateinthepresentcase.
In this background, in the eventuality of registration of FIR and
apprehensionofarrest,asevenworkingdaysnoticebegiventothe
applicant / accused Kanti Prashad on the address given on the
application / official address of his counsel as mentioned in the
application to enable the applicant / accused to avail his legal
remedies.Theapplicationisaccordinglydisposedoff.

(Dr.KaminiLau)
ASJ/NWII,Rohini/9.7.2014

INTHECOURTOFDr.KAMINILAU:ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGEII(NORTHWEST):ROHINICOURTS:DELHI
BailApplicationNo.5871/RC
StateVs.Joginder
FIR:NotKnown
PS:Mangolpuri
U/S:NotKnown
9.7.2014
Present:

Ld.Addl.PPfortheStatewithIOInsp.AshokSharma.
Sh.JaswantSinghandSh.B.P.Manav,Advocatesforthe
applicant/accused.
Heardargumentsontheapplicationforgrantofbailunder

Section438Cr.PCfiledonbehalfoftheapplicant/accused. Itis
pleaded that the applicant / accused has clean antecedents, not
involved in any criminal activities and is innocent and has been
falselyimplicated. Itisfurtherpleadedthattheapplicant/accused
has no concern with the commission of any crime / offence in
connectionwithanycriminalactivities.
IhavealsoperusedthereportfiledbytheInvestigating
Officer. The FIR has already been registered in the present case
bearingNo.1040/14underSection147/148/149/307/302/34Indian
PenalCodeandunderSection25/27ArmsActand theapplicant/
accusedisrequiredforthecustodialinterrogation. Keepingin
viewoftheseriousnessoftheallegationsinvolvedandalsothefact

theapplicant/accusedisrequiredforcustodialinterrogation,Iam
notinclinedtointervene. Theapplicationforgrantofanticipatory
bailisherebydismissed.

(Dr.KaminiLau)
ASJ/NWII,Rohini/9.7.2014

INTHECOURTOFDr.KAMINILAU:ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGEII(NORTHWEST):ROHINICOURTS:DELHI
BailApplicationNo.5877/RC
StateVs.ManjuSharma
FIR:398/14
PS:SouthRohini
U/S:420/468/471/34IPC
9.7.2014
Present:

Ld.Addl.PPfortheStatewithIOSISunilKumar.
Sh.AjayKhanna,Advocatefortheapplicant/accused.
Heardargumentsontheapplicationforgrantofbailunder

Section438Cr.PCfiledonbehalfoftheapplicant/accused.Ihave
alsoperusedthereportfiledbytheInvestigatingOfficer.
ItisarguedbytheLd.Counselfortheapplicant/accused
that the dispute between the parties is basically of a civil nature,
which fact is denied by Addl. PP who has stated that the facts
submittedintheapplicationareincorrectandinfactanewcolourhas
beengiventothestoryandfactstwistedonlytosecurebenefitforthe
accused.
Afterconsideringtherivalcontentionsandwithoutgoing
into the merits of the allegations involved, since the applicant /
accusedisalady,Idirectthattheevidencesocollectedagainstherbe
placedbeforetheseniorofficernotlessthantherankofDCPfor
obtainingthepermissiontoarresttheapplicantandpursuanttothe
grantofsuchpermissionbyanofficernotlessthantherankofa

DCP,asevenworkingdaysnoticebegiventotheapplicant/accused
Manju Sharma on the address given on the application / official
addressofhiscounsel,toenabletheapplicant/accusedtoavailher
legalremedies.Theapplicationisaccordinglydisposedoff.

(Dr.KaminiLau)
ASJ/NWII,Rohini/9.7.2014

FIRNo.94/2010
PS:Kanjhawala
StateVs.Asifetc.
9.7.2014
Present:

Ld.Addl.PPfortheState.
AccusedSaleemisalreadyPO.
AccusedGulfamisnotrespondingtothecalls.
AccusedAsifinJC.
AllotheraccusedarepresentonbailwithSh.Rajesh
JunejaandMs.NaeemJahanHina,Advocates.
Statements under Section 313 Cr.PC of accused

Sahbuddin and Rajesh have been recorded. They do not wish to

examineanywitnessindefence.
Sh.AyubAhmedQureshi,Advocateforotheraccusedis
notpresent. TheaccusedhavebeentoldthatifMr.Qureshiisnot
interested, he will be discharged and the DLSA Counsel shall be
askedtoassistthem.
Nowat thisstage,Sh.AyubAhmedQureshi,Advocate
hasappearedat12:30PM. Hesubmitsthathewasbusyinsome
othercourt. Hehastenderedhisunconditionalapologytothecourt
forfailingtoappearontimeandsubmitsthathewillnotrepeatsuch
conduct in future. Now Mr. Qureshi is permitted to join the
proceedings.
Statements under Section 313 Cr.PC of accused Asif,
Bhola, Kailash, Rizwan, Wasim, Sita Ram and Siraj have been

recordedseparately.Theyalsodonotwishtoexamineanywitnessin
defence.
Accused Gulfam is not present. He is reportedly in
JudicialCustodylodgedinAbdullahpurJailincaseFIRNo.127/14,
underSection379/411IPC,PoliceStationInchauli,Distt.:Meerut,
U.P.IssueproductionwarrantsagainsttheaccusedGulfamthrough
IO/SHO/ACPconcernedforhisappearanceandrecordingofhis
statementunderSection313Cr.PCfor23.7.2014.Casebelistedfor
finalargumentsandfilingofmemorandumofargumentsthereafteron
20.8.2014.

(Dr.KaminiLau)
ASJ/NWII,Rohini/9.7.2014

StateVs.PawanJindaletc.
FIR422/12
PSSubhashPlace
9.7.2014
Present:

Ld.Addl.PPfortheState.
AllaccusedinJCwithSh.GauravKhuranaandSh.Ashok
Drall,Advocates.
DW1 Satish Kumar Jindal has been examined and

discharged.Defenceevidenceisclosed.Belistedforfinalarguments
andfilingofmemorandumofargumentson21.8.2014.

(Dr.KaminiLau)
ASJ/NWII,Rohini/9.7.2014

StateVs.Vikasetc.
FIR201/2010
PSAdarshNagar
9.7.2014
Present:

Ld.Addl.PPfortheState.
AccusedVikasandTriveniSharmaonbail.
AccusedRakesh,VinodandPradeepinJCalongwith
Sh.AnwarAhmedKhan,Ms.PinkiandMs.UshaSharma,
Advocates.
AccusedNeerajhasnotbeenproducedfromFatehabad
Jail,Punjab.
AfaxmessagehasbeenreceivedfromSuperintendentof

Police,Fatehabad,informingthiscourtthataccusedNeerajcannotbe
produced today. It has been observed that even previously when
publicwitnessesarecalledforidentificationoftheaccusedNeeraj,he
isnotbeingproduced bythejailadministration,Fatehabadonthe
pretextofhisothercases. Thepossibilityofthisbeingdeliberate
cannot be ruled out and hence this act of nonproduction would
requirejudicialintervention.
Atthisstage,Ms.UshaSharma,Advocatesubmitsthatshe
is appearingonbehalfoftheaccusedNeerajandnotdisputing
the identity of the accused Neeraj as he has already been
identified in the court by the witness Jaspal Singh from his
dossierandphotographs.Today,JaspalSinghhadbeencalledonly

forpurposesofputtingNeerajtohiminpersononhisproductionfor
identification purposes which was for abandoned caution. Jaspal
SinghispresentbutNeerajhasagainnotbeenproducedasusual.
TheLd.DefenceCounselMs.UshaSharmasubmitsthatsheisnot
insistingonanyreexaminationofwitnessJaspalSinghonthisaspect
and manner of identificationofNeeraj assheisnot disputingthe
identity of accused Neeraj and also the previous identification of
accused Neeraj by witnessJaspal Singhfromhisphotographsand
dossiers. In this background, witness Jaspal Singh need not be
examinedagainandispermittedtobedroppedbyAddl.PPforthe
State.
PW16 Rahul Rathi has been examined and discharged.
Casebelistedforrecordingofadditionalstatementofaccusedunder
Section313Cr.PCon5.8.2014.

(Dr.KaminiLau)
ASJ/NWII,Rohini/9.7.2014

StateVs.Jitender@Michael
FIR42/2012
PSBharatNagar
9.7.2014
Present:

Ld.Addl.PPfortheState.
BothaccusedinJCwithSh.SaurabhTyagi,Advocate.
SinceIamrequiredtorushtoHon'bleHighCourtfora

meeting,notimeislefttodictatetheorderstoday.Caseberelisted
fororderson28.7.2014.
(Dr.KaminiLau)
ASJ/NWII,Rohini/9.7.2014

StateVs.TarunThapa
FIR502/13
PSMangolpuri
9.7.2014

StateVs.TarunThapa
FIR502/13
PSMangolpuri
9.7.2014
Present:

Ld.Addl.PPfortheState.
BothaccusedinJC.
Counsel for the accused is not present nor the

memorandumofargumentsarefiled.
Onrequest,beawaited.
(Dr.KaminiLau)
ASJ/NWII,Rohini/9.7.2014
2:50PM
Present:

Ld.Addl.PPfortheState.
BothaccusedinJC.
Atthisstage,Sh.KashmirSingh,Advocatehasappeared.

He submits that due to ill health he could not prepare the

memorandum of arguments and requests for one day time for the
same.Heardarguments.OnrequestofLd.Counsel,heispermitted
tofilememorandumofargumentsby12:00PM(Noon)on10.7.2014.
Belistedforordersthereafter.

(Dr.KaminiLau)
ASJ/NWII,Rohini/9.7.2014