INTERNSHIP DIARY

District & Sessions Court, Sirsa , Haryana.

Internship Details :
 Name of Advocate : Adv. Vijay Singh Sra
 Period of internship : 12th October, 2020 – 09th
November,2020

Submitted by :
Tushal Bagri
220/16
B.Com LL.B. (Hons.)
9th Semester
Section D
 1. In the court of Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, Sessions Judge, SIRSA.

Bail Application
BA/2544/2020

Jagtar Singh S/o Dev Singh…………..….. Applicant

v.
State of Haryana Through PP Sirsa ………Respondent

FIR no. 173/29-07-2020

U/s 379A IPC
P.S. : Kalanwali

(2nd Application for regular bail u/s 439 of CrPC.)

Facts of the case: As per the case of prosecution on dated 28-07-2020 at about
8:30 PM , Darshan Kumar S/o Nathu Ram resident of Kallanwali was going to his
home from his shop, when he was passing through the telephone exchange street,
three boys came on motorbike and they snatched his mobile and tried to escape but
their motorbike slipped as a result of which all three boys fell on road. He raised
noise upon which several persons gathered there and they caught them along with
motorbike. Accused Jagtar Singh and Sikandar Singh was arrested. The snatched
mobile was recovered from them.

Arguments advanced :

1. Respondents arguments : The learned public prosecutor for state opposed

the present bail application on basis of above mentioned facts. He submitted
that first bail application of present applicant has already been dismissed
vide order dated 25-08-2020. He further submitted that applicant is likely to
flee away after obtaining the bail. Prayer was accordingly made to dismiss
the present bail application keeping in view the gravity of offence.

2.) Petitioner arguments : The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is in
custody since 29-07-2020. He is not more required by investigating agency for
any other purpose. No useful purpose will be served by detaining the
accused/petitioner in custody. Chalan has already been submitted in the court
and conclusion of trial shall take a long time. This is the first bail application
after filling of chalan , as the first bail application was dismissed before filing of
chalan vide order dated 25-08-2020. Learned counsel for applicant submitted
that there is no chance of fleeing away of applicant as he is ready to furnish
sound surety for his release. Accordingly prayer has been made to release the
applicant on regular bail.
Order :
After hearing contentions from both sides, the hon’ble judge have given his
thoughtful consideration to the same . The applicant was arrested on 29-07-2020
and since then he is in jail. Recovery of snatched mobile phone has already been
effected. He is not required by the investigating agency for any other purpose.
Chalan has already been submitted in the court. Conclusion of trial will take a
sufficient long time. No other case of similar nature is pending against him. So no
useful purpose would be served by detaining the applicant in custody for indefinite
period. He is therefore, ordered to be release on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of ₹50,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the
satisfaction of duty magistrate.

ALLOWED

Dated: 12th October, 2020

2. In the court of Sh. Manish Kumar , Add. Sessions Judge , SIRSA.

Bail Application NDPS case

BA/2615/2020

Mohan Lal S/o Mangla Ram………………….. Petitioner

V.

State of Haryana Through PP Sirsa…………….. Respondent

FIR no. 64/10-02-2020

U/s 22 C NDPS Act,1985

P.S. : Ellenabad

(1st Application for regular bail u/s 439 of CrpC.)

Facts of the case : As per the contents of the FIR on 10-02-2020 patrolling
duty by police officials at village Khari Surera, Distt. Sirsa , a secret information
was received concealing of narcotic substance by Manjit Singh and Mohan Lal in
cow dung at Nayak Mohalla. On this information, a notice u/s 42 of NDPS Act was
prepared and sent to DSP(HQ) Sirsa for information through ct. Sudesh Kumar.
Therefore, a police party reached at the spot. On the arrival and instructions of
DSP(HQ) , Sirsa , gazetted officer Ved Pal , BDPO , Ellenabad. The cow dung was
dug and total 5 bags were recovered. All five bags were opened which led to
recovery of 35600 intoxicating capsules Marka Ridley Parvorin Spas Tramadol
Hydrochloride. After usual formalities at spot, the present case was registered on
14-09-2020 accused/ petitioner Mohan Lal was arrested. The petitioner is in
custody since 10-02-2020.

Arguments advanced :

1. Petitioner arguments : It is contended by the learned counsel for

the accused/ petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and falsely roped in the
present case. The mandatory provisions of NDPS Act , 1985 were not
complied with. No independent witness was joined at the time of alleged
recovery and no gazetted officers was called. The petitioner is not required
for custodial interrogation.

2. Respondents arguments : The learned Public Prosecutor opposed

the contentions. It is submitted that huge quantity of intoxicating capsules
which falls under commercial quantity were recovered from petitioner. In
the event of release, the petitioner may further indulge in similar activities.
Order :
The alleged recovery of aforesaid 35600 intoxicating capsules weighing 17.774 kg
admittedly falls under commercial quantity. The provisions of section 439 of CrPC
are subjected to provisions of section 37 of NDPS Act. There is a rider provided
under section 37 to take care while dealing with bail matters. The hon’ble Supreme
court of India in Union of India v. Thamisharasi (1995), 4 SCC 190. It was held
that section 37 imposes limitations on granting of bail. The term and conditions
which really have relevance so far as present applicant/accused is concerned, is the
satisfaction of court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is
not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on
bail. The conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction
contemplated regarding the being not guilty has to be based on reasonable grounds.
The expressions “reasonable ground” means something more than prima facie
ground. It is contemplated substantial probable cause for believing that accused is
not guilty of the alleged offence. In present case it is not pleaded in bail application
that accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. It is also not pressed that accused
shall not commit any such offence if released on bail. There is no material on
record to presume so.

In these circumstances there is not any substance in submission of learned counsel

for petitioner. Thus, the present petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of
merits.

ANNOUNCED

DATE: 16th October, 2020.

 3. In the court of Sh. Manish Kumar , Addl. Sessions Judge, SIRSA.

Bail Application NDPS case

Satpal S/o Chandi Ram.…………………….. Petitioner

v.
State of Haryana………………………...Respondent

FIR no. 335/16-10-2020

U/s 15 NDPS Act, 1985
P.S. : Ellenabad

(Application U/s 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail.)

Facts of the case : As per the case of prosecution on 16th October, 2020 police
officials were proceeding toward Sirsa from Ellenabad in connection with
patrolling duty. On the way, accused Jasbir Singh carrying poly envelope was
coming on foot who on seeing the police party turned back. However, on the basis
of suspicion, police caught the accused Jasbir Singh and searched polybag carried
by him led to recovery of 1.2 kg of poppystraw. On preliminary interrogation
accused Jasbir Singh disclosed that he bought the alleged contraband from Satpal
S/o Chandi Ram (Petitioner) after usual formalities on spot present FIR was
registered. Accused Jasbir Singh was arrested in accordance with law. The police
was in search of the petitioner.

Arguments advanced

1. Petitioner’s arguments : It was contended by the learned counsel for

the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in this case.
The name of the petitioner figures in the present case only on the basis of
disclosure statement of co-accused (Jasbir Singh) while nothing is likely to
be recovered from him. He has apprehension of his arrest at the hands of
local the petitioner is ready to join and corporate in investigation. Arguing
on these lines he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

2. Respondents arguments : The counsel for the state opposed the bail
application contending that petitioner is involved in serious offence. The
custodial interrogation of petitioner is required for tracing the origin of the
contraband.

Order :
Apparently there is no reason forwarded by learned counsel for false implication of
petitioner. In the absence of any justification, it cannot be assumed that the
petitioner is innocent. Admittedly 1.2 kg popystraw was recovered from co-
accused. Such huge quantity itself indicates involvement of various persons. Such
crimes are now rising day by day. Youth is much attracted for such crimes in order
to earn easy money. This is further sufficient to infer that custodial interrogation is
necessary to unearth the whole flow of drugs in surroundings and also to crack the
syndicate. No doubt the petitioner is involved in the statement of the co-accused
but in such like cases, custodial interrogation is necessary to investigate about the
origin from where the drugs have been obtained as well as the other persons
involved in the racket. The hon’ble Supreme court of India in case D.K. Ganesh
Babu v. P.T. Manokaran & Anr [2007 (2) RCR (criminal) 161 ] , the hon’ble
court held that anticipatory bail is granted in extraordinary circumstances and only
in exceptional cases where it appears that a person may be falsely implicated where
there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of a offence is not
likely to otherwise misuse his liberty then power is to be exercised u/s 438 of
CrPC. As per the aforesaid law laid down by the hon’ble Supreme court and in
view of the gravity of offence as well as infact that custodial interrogation of
accused is necessary to unearth the whole flow of drugs the present bail application
u/s 438 CrPC is dismissed.

ANNOUNCED

Dated : 26th October, 2020.

 4. In the court of Sh. Praveen Kumar Lal, Addl. Sessions Judge,
SIRSA.

Bail Application

Deep Singh alias Babbi S/o Mandar Singh………………….. Petitioner

V.

State of Haryana Through PP Sirsa………………………Respondent

FIR no. : 103/05-04-2020

U/s 25 of Arms Act and U/s 188,307,323,34 IPC

P.S. : Sadar Dabwali

( 1st Application U/s 438 of CrPC for anticipatory bail)

Facts of the case : That the present case was registered on the statement
made by complainant Gurvinder Singh son of Chhinder Singh, resident of
village Habuana, who alleged that on 04.04.2020 at about 9.15 p.m. on the
directions of their village Sarpanch namely Balwinder Singh, he along with
Kaku Singh, Nishan Singh, Lovepreet Singh and Janan Singh, residents of
village Habuana, put a temporary barricade in order to avoid Covid-19. In
the meantime, two cars came from village Habauana which were got stopped
with signal. In the torch light, driver of first car was recognized as Babbi
son of Mandar Singh and driver of second car was recognized as Babbu
son of Gurtej. They started quarreling with him ( complainant) for stopping
their vehicles. Babbu asked to his friend Babbi that fire a gun shot upon
them ( complainant party) upon which Babbi Singh all of sudden, fired a
gun shot upon him in order to kill with death. He ( complainant) in order
to save his life fell on the ground meanwhile Babbi Singh fired three more
gun shots and all of sudden he ( Babbi Singh) ran away from the spot in
his Scorpio vehicle bearing No.HR24W/1171 whereas another accused Babbu
was caught hold by them on the spot alongwith his car I-10 Grand HR-
26CD 4888. On this statement present case under Section 323, 307, 188
read with Section 34 of IPC was registered. Accused Babbu Singh alongwith
his car, was produced before the police. He was arrested on 05.04.2020 and
his car was taken into police possession. Investigating Officer inspected the
spot. He made his disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the
commission of crime of the present case. Apprehending his arrest, the
petitioner-accused has filed the instant application for anticipatory bail.

Arguments advanced :

1. Petitioners arguments : It was contended by the learned counsel that

the applicant-accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. It is submitted by him that the petitioner has not been
 attributed any injury allegedly suffered by the complainant and also as
per version of the complainant, he was not having any weapon for
which his custodial interrogation is required. It has further been
submitted that no empty bullets were recovered from the place of
occurrence and therefore, the version of complainant regarding fire
shots, becomes totally false. It has further been submitted that the
petitioner had filed a petitioner under Section 482 of CrPC. in the
Hon'ble P&H High Court for quashing the present FIR on the basis of
panchayati compromise dated 16.09.2020 in which the complainant
and the witnesses have stated that no fire was shot by the petitioner
at the place of occurrence and thus, no case is made out against the
petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the applicant-
accused is ready to join investigation and to keep himself abide by
the terms and conditions to be imposed. Hence, he prayed for
releasing the applicant-accused on anticipatory bail.

2. Respondents arguments : The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application. It is submitted by him that at this stage while deciding
the bail application, merits of the case cannot be looked into. It is
submitted that investigation is still pending and the weapon of offence
i.e. pistol and vehicle Scorpio, are still to be recovered from the
possession of petitioner and therefore, he is very much required for
custodial interrogation for the said purpose. Further submitted that
petitioner is a habitual offender as as per status report there are two
other criminal case under NDPS Act, are registered against him.
Hence, prayed for dismissal of the bail application.
Order :

After hearing the respective submissions of both the sides, this court is not
supposed to give observations in respect to the merits of the case. It is
pertinent to mention here that no conclusive finding could be given in
respect to the stand taken by the applicant-accused as well as prosecution.
Investigation is to be carried out in whole matter. There are serious
allegations against the petitioner which resulted into registration of the
present case against him for committing offence punishable under Section
307 of IPC and 25 of Arms Act and the same cannot be ignored even at
this stage. Moreover, concession of anticipatory bail is to be granted in
special case where accused is able to show that he has been falsely involved
in the case. Custodial interrogation of the accused-petitioner is necessary to
collect evidence i.e. recovery of weapon as well Scorpio car used by him
in the commission of offence. Furthermore, as per status report the petitioner
is also involved in two other criminal cases under NDPS Act. Keeping in
view the aforesaid circumstances, this court finds no merit in the application
as the allegations are serious and grave in nature. Hence, the petitioner is
not entitled for concession of anticipatory bail which is an extra-ordinary
relief and this petition is devoid of merit and same is rejected.