Final Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1/2
IN THE COURT OF ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE/NDPS
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided by: Sudhir Kumar Sirohi, DHJS
Bail Appl. No. 419/23
State Vs. Sandeep Thakur
15.03.2023
Present: Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
Mr. Devender Dheda, Ld. Counsel for applicant.
Mr. Nawab Singh, Ld. Counsel for complainant with
complainant.
IO SI Satender in person.
Arguments on anticipatory bail application of
accused heard.
Ld. counsel for accused argued that summons were
never served on the accused in this matter rather the summons
were served on the brother of accused namely Mr. Sudhir Singh
who is not in cordial terms with the accused, therefore he never
informed the accused about the matter. It is further argued by the
Ld. counsel for accused that the address of accused C-1/32 FF
Yamuna Vihar Delhi 110053 while in the complaint, the address
has been mentioned as JBN Finance House no. 465, Gali no. 8, G
Block-33 Fifth Floor, Dayalpur, Delhi -94 and JBN Finance is
owned by his brother and not by the accused, therefore, the
accused was not having any occasion to know about the
proceedings in this matter and even the NBW and proceedings
u/s 82 CrPC was executed on the Dayalpur address where
accused was not residing. It is further argued by the Ld. counsel
for accused that it is the matter u/s 138 NI Act i.e. bailable
offence and accused was never served, therefore, anticipatory
bail may be granted to accused and accused is ready to appear
before Ld. Trial Court and face the trial.
-- 1 of 3 --
2/3
Ld. counsel for accused relied upon judgment titled
as Puneet Singh Chandra Vs. State 2003 (3) JCC 1485 (Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi)
Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld. Counsel for
complainant opposed the bail application and submitted that
memo of appearance has filed on behalf of accused on
18.02.2020 therefore accused was having knowledge of the
matter and anticipatory bail can not be granted to a person who
has been declared proclaimed offender.
Ld. counsel for complainant relied upon the
following judgment Prem Shankar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and
Anor 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955 and Lvesh Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) (2012) 8 Supreme Court cases 730.
Submissions of both the parties heard.
In the summons served to the accused dated
15.11.2019 it has been mentioned that they were served upon the
accused but the summons bears signature of borther of accused
Mr. Sudhir Singh and after that NBW and process u/s 82 CrPC
was executed at Dayalpur address i.e. business venture of brother
of accused and not on the house of accused or the business
venture of accused, therefore, the process u/s 82 CrPC is not duly
executed. Judgment of complainant are in non-bailable offence,
moreover, offence u/s 138 NI Act is the bailable offence,
therefore, in abovesaid facts and circumstances, accused Sandeep
Thakur is admitted to anticipatory bail and in the event of arrest,
accused be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the
sum of Rs. 30000 with one surety of like amount. Both the
parties are directed to appear before Ld. MM on 21.03.2023 (date
on request of both the parties)
-- 2 of 3 --
3/3
Copy of this order be given dasti and be sent to Ld.
MM/Ld. Concerned Court.
(Sudhir Kumar Sirohi)
Bail Roster Judge
ASJ/Spl. Judge, NDPS/N. Delhi
15.03.2023
-- 3 of 3 --