1. The appeal is directed against judgment dated 06.4.2010 passed by Sessions Judge Raipur in Session Trial No.161/2008 wherein the said Court convicted appellant for commission of offence under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 05 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.

2. In the present case, name of the deceased is Kalu @ Tarun Bagh. As per the version of the prosecution, on 11.6.2008 at 2 noon, the appellant and the deceased were drinking liquor in the house of the appellant. During the course of drinking, a dispute arose regarding daughter of the appellant namely Suman. On this dispute, the appellant and other persons assaulted the deceased and the appellant sat on the chest of the deceased and pressed his neck due to which the deceased become unconscious. He was taken to hospital but succumbed to the injuries. The matter was reported, investigated and the appellant was charge sheeted and convicted as mentioned above.

1. The appeal is directed against judgment dated 30.8.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara Distt. Durg in Session Trial No.14/2010 wherein the said Court convicted appellant for commission of offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 05 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

2

2. In the present case, name of the victim is Ramji Yadav. As per the version of the prosecution, on 31.12.2009 at about 9.00 pm when victim Ramji Yadav along with other persons doing the work of decorating the road by writing "Happy New Year" for celebrating new year, the appellant came there and used filthy words and asked what he is writing. Quarrel took place between the appellant and the victim and the appellant hit the victim on his stomach by knife resulting which he fell down. The victim was admitted to Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai. The matter was reported and the appellant was charge sheeted. After completion of trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 05.02.2015 passed by Special Judge [under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Act, 1985")], Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special NDPS Case No. 126/2014, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 15,000/- with further default stipulations for having possession of contraband article ganja to the tune of 10 kg. on 27.03.2014 at 10:50 p.m. at railway platform No. 1 of Railway Station Bilaspur (C.G.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 03.01.2017 passed by Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 17/2015, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Sections 307 & 323 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 20,000/- & R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/- respectively with further default stipulations.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 11.02.2011 passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act), Durg (C.G.) in NDPS Special Case No. 03/2006, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Act, 1985") and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- with further default stipulations for having possession of contraband article ganja to the tune of 8 kg. on 27.01.2006 at 20:30 O'clock at Bus Stand- Dondi Lohara.

For State/respondent : Mrs. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma CAV JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 11.12.2012 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) & First Additional Session Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Session Trial No. 01/2007, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act, 1988") and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 5000/- & R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- respectively with further default stipulations.

1. "Whether Mr. Maghesh Kumar Singh was posted by NTPC Ltd to Meja Urja Nigam Pvt. Ltd at Corporate office, Allahabad and site office Meja.

2. Whether he suffered a finger crush injury on 26-10-2013 while living in Meja Srijan Vihar Township. If yes, name of the hospital he was admitted to and surgery performed may be furnished.

3. Whether he filed a personal accident claim form in this regard. If yes; the amount for which it was sanctioned and the payment transaction details may kindly be furnished.

Page 1 of 8

4. If the above mentioned claim remains pending since 2013, reason for the same may be intimated. If any official found negligent, the action taken against him may also be intimated."

1. "The attested copy of the very basis of the seniority list of 594 contractor's workers at BTPS as was published on notice board, the Appendix 'D' of Letter no. BT/DGM(Admn)/2/I-842 dt. 22-05-1998.

2. If there is no basis of preparing the aforesaid seniority list, then why the names of other persons were enlisted in the Appendix 'D' of the aforesaid letter."

2. The CPIO responded on 01-03-2018 & 16-05-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 12-03-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 19-04-2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.11.2018, which was decided by the FAA's order dated 30.11.2018, upholding the PIO's reply. Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Proceedings during hearing:

Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference.

The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number: 98xxxxxx90 and submitted that he had sought the information even through the direct official channel. He claims that he had met the DG twice and had been assured by the DG that information regarding marks will be provided but later the respondent denied information without assigning any reason.

PIO/DIG, CISF denied disclosure of information invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide reply dated 10.05.2019.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.05.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 04.06.2019, reiterating the stance taken by the PIO. Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Proceedings during hearing:

Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference.

The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number: 89xxxxx145 and reiterated facts of his case. He has sought the information since he wants to join the service and wants to ensure whether the quota-wise benefit was granted. Decision:

PIO/DIG, CISF denied disclosure of information invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide reply dated 10.04.2019.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.04.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 09.05.2019, upholding the PIO's reply.

Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Proceedings during hearing:

Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference.

The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on her telephone number: 87xxxxxx25 and submitted that her husband passed away in 1997. Since her son was only few months old at the time of her husband's death, compassionate appointment was sought only when he attained 18 years. But respondent denied the benefit of compassionate appointment since the appellant had approached the respondent after a gap of 20 years. Since the appellant claims she is not in receipt of the proper pension amount and the benefit of compassionate appointment has also been denied by the respondent, the family is facing a financial crisis. Hence, she sought the aforementioned information by filing the instant case. Decision:

(1) Have MHA or DoP&T issued any order to revise Pay Scale of all eligible serving and Pensioners by lmplementing Hon'ble Delhi High Court Order on WP (C) 3549/2018 dated 1/5/19 CAPFs including BSF?

(2) ln this regard, has MHA given any decisions, or guidelines to BSF to Revise the Pay Scale of all eligible Personnel who completed 20 year of services by 2OL2 on the basis of above HC order? (3) Has BSF Challenged above HC Verdict before Hon'ble Supreme Court? lf so what consequence? (4) ls grant of MACP according to above Court Order only limit to Sunil Kumar Tyagi or similarly placed Personnel in BSF? What action is being taken by MHA in this regard?

PIO/DIG(Confd) vide reply dated 20.11.2019 denied disclosure of information citing the exemption under Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005, whereby the respondent organization did not fall within the purview of the RTI Act, unless the information pertained to allegations of Corruption and Human Rights Violations.

1. Category-wise cut-off marks of the result declared on 16.04.2019;

2. Marks obtained by the appellant in written examination and candidates with what score have been selected from Rajasthan OBC quota;

3. On what basis will be candidates selected from among the 447 candidates finalized for medical examination.

PIO/DIG, CISF denied disclosure of information invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide reply dated 12.06.2019.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.07.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 04.07.2019, reiterating the stance taken by the PIO.

Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.08.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 06.09.2019, upholding the stance taken by the PIO and observing that the information could not be provided under the RTI Act since it did not fulfill the criteria of either human rights violation or of corruption as provided in the Section 24 of the RTI Act.

Dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Proceedings during hearing:

Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference. The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number: 99xxxxxx54 and reiterated the facts of his case and stated that he was working with CISF earlier and is currently with IB. Appellant stated during the course of hearing that he had posed similar queries before the MHA through a separate RTI application, which has been replied and he has received the requisite information. Having thus received the desired information, he does not wish to pursue the instant case.

PIO/BSF communicated rejection of the RTI application invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide online reply dated 17.12.2019. Meanwhile, the appellant had filed a First Appeal dated 16.12.2019, which was not adjudicated.

Aggrieved by denial of information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Proceedings during hearing:

Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic of COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference.

The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number: 96xxxxxx14 and reiterated the facts of the case stating that he is aggrieved on being denied any information about the marks obtained by him.

1. I want to know its next process & medical test date.

2. When will be its medical test

3. I am eagerly waiting its medial test dates many times I tried to know its previous recruitment centre but they have no information, about it please inform me medical test date He summarised his queries as:

(1) What is the reason of being so late in the process of recruitment. (2) I want to know the status of recruitment whether it will be completed or not.

PIO/DIG, CISF denied disclosure of any information invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act, vide reply dated 08.04.2019.

Aggrieved with denial of information, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.05.2019, which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 14.05.2019, reiterating the stance taken by the PIO.

The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the copy of the documents of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) associated with the files related to the appointment of various Attorney Generals of India since 01.01.2010.

Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 09.10.2018 stated that the Appeal had been examined and it was found that the CPIO on 11.09.2018 had sought certain clarifications from the Appellant. Hence, the Appellant was advised to clarify the same to the CPIO to enable him to provide the available information.

Page 1 of 5 RTI - 2 File No. CIC/DOLAF/A/2018/163414-BJ [ Date of RTI application 12.08.2018 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of the First Appeal 11.09.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 09.10.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 18.10.2018 FACTS:

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

Case RTI PIO First First 2nd Nos. application replied on Appeal Appellate Appeal/complaint filed on filed on Order on received on 644389 11.05.2019 16.05.2019 23.05.2019 10.06.2019 01.07.2019 635814 21.09.2018 08.10.2018 15.10.2018 01.11.2018 21.11.2018 627430 08.07.2018 17.07.2018 28.05.2018 31.07.2018 01.08.2018 CIC/CISFO/A/2019/644389

The Appellant filed RTI application dated 11.05.2019 seeking information through five points pertaining to an incident that took place on 19.04.2014 at around 2330 hrs wherein a truck bearing registration no. WB37 8459 loaded with TMT iron rods was apprehended by the Local Police near CISF Unit NTPC Barh. Subsequently, an inquiry was ordered by the Central Vigilance Page 1 of 8 Commission vide its OM dated January 2015. Since the matter pertains to alleged corruption by CISF officers, the following information was sought:

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Eastern Railway, DRMO Howrah Division seeking information on two points, including,

a) To provide a copy of S.DPO/HWH Letter No. E/Engg/OC/Policy/Pt.IV/2nd Phase dated 31.07.2015, 07.08.2015, and,

b) To provide a copy of seniority list of Track Maintainer III and IV from 2007 to 2015.

2. The CPIO, vide reply dated 27.04.2020, provided requisite information to the appellant. The appellant filed a first appeal dated 24.04.2018 on the ground of no information furnished by the CPIO. The first appeal was not disposed of by the FAA. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground of non-receipt of information and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Eastern Railway, Sealdah Division, Kolkata seeking information on two points pertaining to his representation dated 31.05.2018, including,

a) Whether his aforesaid representation dated 31.05.2018 addressed to Sr. DOM/SDAH has been considered or disposed of, and

b) If disposed of, please serve a copy of the same at the earliest.

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a first appeal dated 25.07.2018. The first appeal was not disposed of by the FAA. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that no information has been furnished by the respondent and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for and take appropriate legal action against the CPIO and the FAA.

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Eastern Railway, DRMO, Howrah Division seeking information on two points, including,

a) To provide a copy of S.DPO/HWH Letter No. E/Engg/OC/Policy/Pt.IV/2nd Phase dated 31.07.2015, 07.08.2015, and

b) To provide a copy of seniority list of Track Maintainer III and IV from 2006 to 2015.

2. The CPIO did not provide requisite information within stipulated period to the appellant. The appellant filed a first appeal dated 24.04.2018 on the ground of no information furnished by the CPIO. The first appeal was also not disposed of by the FAA. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground of non- receipt of information and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), East Central Railway, DRMO, Dhanbad seeking information on four points, including, inter-alia;

a) Whether rules or instructions issued by Director General, Railway Board in East Central Railway, Dhanbad are valid or not,

b) Whether or not the rules/instructions as per the RBI No. 61/2015, letter no. E(N-G)1-2015/R E-3/2 dated 12.06.2015, is valid in the matter of re-absorption of the medically unfit RPF/RPSF employees into an alternate position? Provide a certified copy of the said rule,

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), East Central Railway, DRMO, Jharkhand seeking information on three points, including, "(a) What action has been taken on the appellant's application regarding making adjustments to the alternative post in Samastipur division (East Central Railway),

(b) What action was taken by the Screening Committee on the appellant's application, which was received by Electronic Grievance Redressal Arrangement (EGRS) vide no. 24652 on 05.12.2017, regarding the adjustment of the optional post, and

(c) To provide certified copies of all the documents along with the complete file in the name of the appellant, available with the Screening Commissioner, including the written application accepted by the appellant for the clerical post."

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), East Central Railway, DRMO, Jharkhand seeking information on six points pertaining to technician post, including, inter-alia;

a) Is the proof of validation issued in the railway hospital by the screening committee on the optional post after medical distortion valid,

b) What is the medical category for the post of Technician Grade-III,

c) Does the post of technician grade-III fall in the category of sedentary job. And other related information.

2. The CPIO, vide reply dated 09.05.2018, provided point wise information to the appellant. Being dissatisfied by the information provided on point nos. 3 and 6, the appellant filed a first appeal dated 25.05.2018. FAA, vide order dated 15.06.2018, upheld the CPIO's reply. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on similar grounds and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.

1. The appellant filed an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Eastern Railway, Kolkata seeking information regarding General Conditions to Contract applicable to the works (contracts) under Eastern Railways for the year 2000, 2003 and 2010-2018.

2. The CPIO, vide letter dated 13.07.2018, offered inspection to the appellant. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a first appeal dated 30.07.2018 requesting to provide the information sought for. FAA, vide order dated 28.08.2018, upheld the reply of CPIO. Thereafter, the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground of incomplete information furnished by the CPIO and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for and take appropriate legal action against the respondent.

1. The appellant filed an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Eastern Railway, Kolkata seeking information on seven points regarding reduction of pension of the Pensioner Shri Ganesh Chandra Mishra with PPO No. 02101265992 including,

a) Reason for 75% reduction of Pension,

b) Whether any inquiry was held against the Pensioner due to which pension was reduced,

c) Copy of Notice issued to the pensioner informing him that he is subject to an inquiry,

d) Receipt of confirmation showing Notice received by the Pensioner,

e) Transcript of the inquiry and report of inquiry, if any, held against the pensioner,

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since no notice for arrest as observed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panipat in the order dated 12.04.2020, (Annexure P-1) has been received, he be permitted to withdraw the present petition at this stage with liberty to approach the Court again, in case, needs so arises.

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid with the clarification that the petitioner will be bound to file notarized affidavit, 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-05-2020 20:48:29 ::: CRM-M-12079 of 2020 Vakalatnama and deposit the requisite Court fee within a period of 10 days after the lockdown is over.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE May 08, 2020 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No 1 of 1 ::: Downloaded on - 09-05-2020 20:43:49 :::

The petitioner has already made representation against the impugned order dated 13.12.2019 (Annexure P-1) to the Vice Chancellor, Shree Guru Gobind Singh Tricentenary University, Gurugram. The worthy Vice Chancellor is directed to decide the representation within a period of two weeks from today, strictly as per the University Statues & Ordinance as well as on the basis of compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-05-2020 20:40:51 ::: CWP-7284-2020 -2- complainants.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

( RAJIV SHARMA ) JUDGE ( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ) JUDGE May 08, 2020 ndj Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-05-2020 20:40:51 :::

----

Present: Mr. Naveen Sharma (Bhardwaj), Advocate for the petitioner.

**** Lalit Batra, J.(Oral) Case has been taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that representation dated 20.04.2020 (Annexure P-5) moved by petitioner is still pending before respondent No.4-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Loharu, District Bhiwani and the said authority may be asked to decide the said representation at the earliest.

Learned State counsel has given concurrence to the above said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner has already made a representation vide Annexure P-3. The competent authority is directed to decide the representation within a period of one week from today by passing a speaking/detailed order and also by taking into consideration all the pleas raised in the writ petition.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

( RAJIV SHARMA ) JUDGE ( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ) JUDGE May 08, 2020 ndj Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 1 of 1 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 20:40:15 :::

The petitioner has already made a representation. The competent authority is directed to decide the representation in accordance with law within a period of one week from today by passing a speaking/detailed order.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

( RAJIV SHARMA ) JUDGE ( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ) JUDGE May 08, 2020 ndj Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 1 of 1 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 20:42:29 :::

The petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Chandigarh within a period of one week from today. The General Manager shall decide the representation by passing a speaking/detailed order by referring to the terms and conditions incorporated in the tender document.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

( RAJIV SHARMA ) JUDGE ( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU ) JUDGE May 08, 2020 ndj Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 1 of 1 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 20:39:14 :::

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No.219 dated 05.10.2019 under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the allegation against the petitioner is that 605 grams Charas was recovered from him which he was allegedly carrying in a red colour bag. He submits that the alleged recovery is non-commercial. He further submits that he is in custody since 05.10.2019 and the trial is likely to take sometime to conclude.

1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09-05-2020 20:52:28 ::: CRM-M-52914 of 2019 {2}

Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioners. In fact, it is a case of version and cross version, wherein, both the parties received injuries. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC and it was after a period of 3½ months from the date of occurrence, an offence under Sections 326 IPC was added.

It has been further submitted that petitioner No.1 - Jarnail Singh, who was alleged to have been armed with Kapa has been attributed a simple injury. Petitioner No.2 - Jaspal Singh @ Jagpal Singh, who was alleged to be armed with a dang, too was attributed a blunt simple injury.

It has been pointed out that allegations against the petitioner are to the effect that he had painted the vehicle and fictitious number plates. It has been arguedby learned counsel for the petitioner that co- accused namely Raja who was arrested from the spot has been granted regular bail and Ajay Kumar co-accused has been granted pre-arrest bail by this Court. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is over and he has been remanded to judicial custody. Investigation of the case is complete. The offences are triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class.

1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 21:20:13 ::: Challan has already been presented in the Court. Petitioner has been sought to be implicated on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co- accused.

Prayer in the application is for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR bearing No.37 dated 05.03.2020, under Sections 376 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506 IPC were added later on) registered at Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar.

FIR was recorded on the statement of ABC (name withheld). She stated that in the year 2018, she alongwith her female friends had gone to the house of Jassa son of Kashmiri Lal for Lohri, where Jassa clicked group and individual photographs of the complainant and her friends. In February 2018, Reena Rani wife of Rui Das, sister-in-law of Jassa, called the complainant to her house and took photographs of the complainant with Jassa. Reena made Jassa and the complainant sit in a room and bolted the door from outside. When Jassa and complainant were alone in the room, 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 21:11:25 ::: CRM-M-12084 of 2020 {2} Jassa sexually assaulted the complainant. Somehow the complainant managed to get door opened and went back home. Jassa started harassing, black-mailing and threatened her. Later on, the complainant narrated the entire incident to her mother and submitted a complaint before the police authorities.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case in hand. The petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased had been married for almost 15 years and no complaint whatsoever was ever lodged against the petitioner by the complainant prior to the occurrence in hand. It has further been contended that all the material witnesses including the complainant did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile before the trial Court.

The learned State counsel on the other hand has vehemently opposed the grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner by contending that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner, who is none other than the husband of the deceased. He, 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 21:14:39 ::: CRM-M-44316-2019 [ 2 ] however, has not been able to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant and other material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution during trial and were declared hostile by the trial court.

PRESENT: MS. GURSHARAN K. MANN, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.

MR. GAURAV DHURIWALA, SR.DAG, PUNJAB.

MANOJ BAJAJ, J.(ORAL) Kamlesh Verma @ Kiran Mummy has filed this petition for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.56 dated 9.5.2019 under Sections 376- D/120-B IPC, Police Station E-Division, District Amritsar. The petitioner is in custody since her arrest on 18.2.2020. The above FIR in question was initially registered at Police Station Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar as Zero FIR and was later on forwarded to District Amritsar where the above FIR was recorded.

As per the allegations, the victims had voluntarily left their house on 31.7.2018 and reached at Amritsar, where they came in contact with two persons, namely, Gagan and Vicky. They both promised a job for them and took them to the house of Vicky, where they raped the victims repeatedly. Later on, the victims were sent to other persons as well and accused Simmi facilitated the illegal sexual activities at her residence. Gagan used to send one of the victims outside the town as well. One of the 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 21:07:10 ::: CRM-M-12077-2020 (O&M) -2-

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that a perusal of the FIR clearly reveals that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against the petitioners. It has been further contended that an inquiry was conducted by the DSP (Major Crime) Moga (Annexure P2) subsequent to the registration of FIR which found the petitioners innocent as they were not present at the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence which lends credence to the factum of petitioners having been falsely implicated in the instant case. It has been thus prayed that the petitioners be granted the concession of regular bail as they have been behind bars since 01.03.2020 coupled with the fact that the injury allegedly attributed to the petitioners was found to be blunt in nature.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a perusal of the FIR clearly reveals that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against the petitioner. It has been further contended that an inquiry was conducted by the DSP (Major Crime) Moga (Annexure P2) subsequent to the registration of FIR which found the petitioner and his sons innocent as they were not present at the spot at the time of the alleged occurrence which lends credence to the factum of petitioner having been falsely implicated in the instant case. It has been thus prayed that the petitioner be granted the concession of regular bail as he has been behind bars since 01.03.2020 coupled with the fact that the injury allegedly attributed to the petitioner was found to be blunt in nature.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the story put-forth in the FIR is a fabricated one and he has been falsely implicated in the FIR despite the fact that the electricity connection, which was found tampered was not even in his name, but in the name of one Rajesh. Hence, there was no evidence which could connect the petitioner with the alleged offence under Sections 135, 138 and 150 of the Electricity Act.

It has been further submitted that the petitioner has been behind the bars since 06th February, 2020. He has an ailing mother of 80 years of age and a minor child in his house and there is no body to look after his family in the prevailing conditions on account of the pandemic outbreak.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per the allegations in the FIR, the police party headed by ASI Baldev Raj, who is also the complainant in the case noticed that a motorcycle was coming and on seeing the police party, the driver of the motorcycle became perplexed and the person who was sitting on the pillion rider seat has thrown a black polythene bag on the road and the Heroin spread over the metaled road. Thereafter, the said ASI collected the 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 21:00:35 ::: CRM-M No.12060 of 2020 (O&M) 2 Heroin and put the same in a polythene bag and on weighing it came to 20 gms. It is further stated in the FIR that the driver of the motorcycle informed his name as Arjun i.e. the petitioner whereas the person who was on the pillion rider told his name as Sandeep @ Zora.

Counsel for the petitioners has argued that as per the allegations in the FIR, the co-accused of the petitioners namely Binder Singh has caused the injury on the head of the complainant and he already stands arrested, however, he has been granted the concession of the regular bail by the trial Court. It is further submitted that both the petitioners are attributed injuries on the non-vital part of the complainant and it will be a debatable issue to be decided during the 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 20:56:16 ::: CRM-M No.12049 of 2020 (O&M) 2 course of trial, whether Sections 332 and 334 IPC are made out or not.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Royal Star Securities (Regd.), which is an outsourcing agency and was given a contract by the Sonepat Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Sonepat for providing security to its bank. It is further argued that initially, the contract was terminated by the bank for which he has filed CWP No.27543 of 2017 in which notice has been issued for 08.07.2020. It is also submitted that, thereafter, the 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 08-05-2020 20:55:09 ::: CRM-M No.12031 of 2020 (O&M) 2 agency was blacklisted by the Bank and he had filed another writ petition i.e. CWP No.12409 of 2018, which is also ordered to be heard with the first writ petition. It is also submitted that subsequently the FIR has been registered with the allegation that the petitioner has not deposited the Provident Fund, ESI, service tax, etc. Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and the charges were framed on 24.02.2020. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the subsequent zimini orders vide which the case was fixed for prosecution evidence but the same is not completed despite a lapse of 60 days prescribed under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. and therefore, it is requested that the petitioner be granted the default bail. It is also submitted that the petitioner is involved in any other case and the FIR is just a counter blast to the writ petitions filed by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has inter alia submitted that the petitioner, who is a lady has been behind bars for almost 05 months. Further, a perusal of the FIR in question clearly reveals that no specific allegations have been levelled against her. It is thus very evident that she has been arrayed as an accused only because she happened to be the wife of the main accused - Navjot Singh. It has been further contended that she is confined in the Central Jail, Patiala, where one COVID-19 positive case too has been found. Hence, she be granted the concession of regular bail due to the prevailing outbreak of COVID-19 and also because the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future.

1 Learned A.P.P, on instructions, states that the statement of the victim girl has been recorded on 6 th May 2020 and that the police intend to register a C.R pursuant to the said statement. Statement accepted. 2 Stand over to 12th June 2020.

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

SQ Pathan 1/1

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as well as learned advocate Mr. S. S. Ladda who is intervening and appearing for the original informant.

2. It will not be out of place to mention here that, this Court by order dated 15-04-2020 has directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants for a period of three weeks or till such time the State Government withdraws the lockdown in its entirety, whichever is earlier. Now the lockdown has not yet ended and, therefore, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks extension of the said order. The applications have been mainly objected by the learned advocate for the informant who submits that, the wives of the present applicants had approached this Court also for pre-arrest bail and it was not granted. Then they had approached Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05-02-2020. The said application was rejected and the petitioners therein were directed to surrender within a period of three months. The learned advocate for informant had ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:52:45 ::: 3 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020 submitted that, till today there is no compliance of the said order by those petitioners. In fact, the role of those petitioners is lesser than the present applicants yet the protection is granted to the applicants, and now by taking disadvantage of the said order, the applicants are trying to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution as well as trying to drive the informant is under fear.

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as well as learned advocate Mr. S. S. Ladda who is intervening and appearing for the original informant.

2. It will not be out of place to mention here that, this Court by order dated 15-04-2020 has directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants for a period of three weeks or till such time the State Government withdraws the lockdown in its entirety, whichever is earlier. Now the lockdown has not yet ended and, therefore, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks extension of the said order. The applications have been mainly objected by the learned advocate for the informant who submits that, the wives of the present applicants had approached this Court also for pre-arrest bail and it was not granted. Then they had approached Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05-02-2020. The said application was rejected and the petitioners therein were directed to surrender within a period of three months. The learned advocate for informant had ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:53:02 ::: 3 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020 submitted that, till today there is no compliance of the said order by those petitioners. In fact, the role of those petitioners is lesser than the present applicants yet the protection is granted to the applicants, and now by taking disadvantage of the said order, the applicants are trying to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution as well as trying to drive the informant is under fear.

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as well as learned advocate Mr. S. S. Ladda who is intervening and appearing for the original informant.

2. It will not be out of place to mention here that, this Court by order dated 15-04-2020 has directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants for a period of three weeks or till such time the State Government withdraws the lockdown in its entirety, whichever is earlier. Now the lockdown has not yet ended and, therefore, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks extension of the said order. The applications have been mainly objected by the learned advocate for the informant who submits that, the wives of the present applicants had approached this Court also for pre-arrest bail and it was not granted. Then they had approached Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05-02-2020. The said application was rejected and the petitioners therein were directed to surrender within a period of three months. The learned advocate for informant had ::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2020 12:52:40 ::: 3 ABA369-2020 with 370-2020 submitted that, till today there is no compliance of the said order by those petitioners. In fact, the role of those petitioners is lesser than the present applicants yet the protection is granted to the applicants, and now by taking disadvantage of the said order, the applicants are trying to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution as well as trying to drive the informant is under fear.