9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce with law. Once the accused were apprehended, kept in custody throughout the night, FIR registered in the morning at Police Station Crime Branch at Pushp Vihar, one fails to understand why the formal arrest was made at 11:45 a.m. as is evident from the Arrest Memo. Further, the Arrest Memo notes in Column No.2 his wife being informed , as also has the right thumb impression of Begum, the wife of the petitioner - the two accused were produced before the learned ASJ who granted one day police custody remand. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in sum of ₹50,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/duty Magistrate, further subject to the condition that the petitioner will not leave NCT of Delhi without the prior permission of the court concerned and in case of change of residential address and/or the mobile phone number, the same will be intimated to the Court concerned by way of an affidavit - petition disposed off. - BAIL APPLN. 732/2021 - - - Dated:- 1-6-2021 - HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Petitioner: Mr.R.K. Giri, Advocate. Respondent: Mr.Ravi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002 Crl.J 2013 Ayub Khan vs. State of Rajasthan. The site plan was purportedly prepared on the next day when no witness was present and cannot be looked into. The petitioner was in fact lifted from his house and falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner has clean antecedents and is not involved in any offence whatsoever prior to this case. Further the alleged recovery from the petitioner is also of intermediate quantity and hence the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act are not applicable. 3. Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that the site plan was prepared when SI Arvind along with the Investigating Officer went to the spot. The allegations that the petitioner was picked up from the house and falsely implicated are baseless. The CDR of the petitioner shows his connection with the co-accused. Search of the co-accused was taken by the woman constable in the presence of the ACP and SI Arvind who constituted the raiding team. Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act stand complied with and hence no case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner. 4. The above noted FIR was registered after a secret information was received on 17th December, 2020 by SI Arvind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anda with the help of adhesive tape and marked as Parcel-C. During further search a transparent polythene was recovered from the right side front pocket of the jeans of the petitioner which on opening the rubber band was found to contain light brown colour powder. On checking the same was found to be heroin and thus this polythene was also converted into Parcel-E by keeping in a plastic box and tying with the adhesive tapes. The recovered pullandas were seized and sealed with the seal of AK . 6. According to the charge sheet, due to Covid-19 pandemic and lack of proper light at the spot, Praveen and Gul Babu @ Pappu were brought to the office of Narcotics Cell, Crime Branch, Old Kotwali Building, Darya Ganj, Delhi from where a written report was prepared for registration of FIR under Sections 21/29 NDPS Act. The written report along with the pullandas with seizure memo were sent by Constable Rajesh to be handed over to the duty officer of PS Crime Branch at Pushp Vihar for registration of FIR and the rest of the items were handed over to SHO, PS Crime Branch at Pushp Vihar in compliance of Section 55 of the NDPS Act. 7. According to the charge sheet Gul Babu @ Pappu had supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reafter, the FIR was registered at 6:36 hours on 18th December, 2020. 10. Once the accused were apprehended, kept in custody throughout the night, FIR registered in the morning at Police Station Crime Branch at Pushp Vihar, one fails to understand why the formal arrest was made at 11:45 a.m. as is evident from the Arrest Memo. Further, the Arrest Memo notes in Column No.2 his wife being informed , as also has the right thumb impression of Begum, the wife of the petitioner. This Court had called for the case diaries wherein it is noted that the Investigating Officer SI Abdul Barkat, who was handed over the investigation at 9.00 A.M. arrested Smt. Parveen at 11:00 a.m. and Gul Babu @ Pappu at 11:45 a.m., whereafter they were taken to Tis Hazari Court, where Parveen s daughter Mariyam and Gul Babu s wife were present in the Court Complex and information regarding their arrest were given to them verbally and their signatures and thumb impression obtained on the respective Arrest Memos. Thereafter, the two accused were produced before the learned ASJ who granted one day police custody remand. 11. What is disturbing in this case is that the residence of the petitioner is at Suiwal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
