Untitled

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE EVENING
COURT NO.2, KKD COURTS, DELHI

INRE:
HDFC BANK V/S MAHESH GARG

C.C.NO. 595/2010
U/S 138 N.I.ACT
D.O.H.16.04.2010
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED MAHESH GARG FOR GRANT

OF EXEMPTION FROM PERSONAL APPEARANCE
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1 That the above noted case is pending before
this Hon’ble Court and fixed for today i.e.
16.04.2010.
2 That the applicant/accused is unable to
appear before this Hon’ble court today
because he is suffering from viral fever due
to which he is on bed rest, hence this
application for grant of exemption.
3 That the non-appearance of applicant/accused
is neither intentional nor deliberate but due
to the above said reason.
Prayer:
It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble

court may kindly be pleased to grant
exemption in this case, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 17.04.2010 Applicant/accused
Through
Counsel
(KAMAL KANT TRIPATHI)
IN THE COURT OF SH. R.L. MEENA MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
RAJESH KUMAR PURI V/S SOHAN SINGH

C.C.NO.
U/S 138 N.I.ACT
P.S. GEETA COLONY
D.O.H.15.04.2010
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED BRIJ BHUSHAN FOR GRANT

OF EXEMPTION OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

15.04.2010.
2 That the applicant/accused, is unable to
because he is seriously ill due to which he
is on bed rest due to an accident, hence this
application.
3 That the non-appearance of the applicant/
accused is neither intentional nor deliberate
but due to the above said reason.
Prayer:

exemption from his personal appearance, in
the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Through
(KAMAL KANT TRIPATHI)

IN THE COURT OF MS SUCHI SHAHMIRI MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE
STATE V/S KAWARJEET SINGH & OTHERS

FIR NO. 80/2000
U/S 498A/34 IPC
P.S. BHAJANPURA
D.O.H. 30.03.2011
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS NAMELY

SARABJEET SINGH, KULVINDER KAUR FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION
OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

30.03.2011.
2 That the applicants/accused person are unable

to appear before this Hon’ble court today
because accused Sarabjeet is suffering from
viral fever due to which he is on best rest,
while accused Kulvinder Kaur is staying at
her house to lookafter her husband also the
final exams of children of accused is going
on, hence this application.
3 That the non-appearance of the applicants/

4 That it is necessary to mention here that
compromise has been done between the accused
persons and the complainant and both the
partiers have been moving to High Court of
Delhi for quashing the FIR.
Prayer:
exemption from his personal appearance of the
applicants/accused persons, in the interest
of justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 30.03.2011 APPLICANTS/ ACCUSED PERSONS
Through
KAWARJEET SINGH
CO-ACCUSED
INRE

FIR NO. 80/2000
U/S 498A/34 IPC
P.S. BHAJANPURA
D.O.H. 30.03.2011
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS NAMELY ARUN

GANGRU, HARMEET KAUR FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION OF PERSONAL
APPEARANCE

30.03.2011.
2 That the applicants/accused person are unable

to appear before this Hon’ble court today
because accused HARMEET KAUR slipped from
stairs in her house due to which he received
fracture in her leg and due to which she had
to take bed rest also to lookafter his wife
and their minor children and final exams of
children of accused are going on, due to
which the accused Arun Gangru had to stay his
house, hence this application.
3 That the non-appearance of the applicants/

4 That it is necessary to mention here that a
compromise proceeding is going between the
accused persons and complainant and the
complainant is not ready to proceed the case.
Prayer:
of justice.
Delhi:
Through
KAWARJEET SINGH
CO-ACCUSED
INRE

FIR NO. 80/2000
U/S 498A/34 IPC
P.S. BHAJANPURA
D.O.H. 30.03.2011
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS NAMELY AMAR

SINGH FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

30.03.2011.
2 That the applicant/accused is unable to

because he is suffering from eyes
problem/infection also he is suffering from
various old ages diseases like Acute Coronary
syndrome, ischemia mellitus type-2,
hypertension, obesity, dilated LV, Fiar LV
function and gone through surgery, therefore
he is unable to travel due to which he has
been advised by the doctor for bed rest,
hence this application.

4 That it is necessary to mention here that
compromise has been done between the accused
persons and the complainant and both the
partiers have been moving to High Court of
Delhi for quashing the FIR.
Prayer:
of justice.
Delhi:
Through
KAWARJEET SINGH
CO-ACCUSED
IN THE COURT OF MS SAVITRI MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE
STATE V/S SUMIT & SHASHI @ OTHERS

FIR NO. 495/2007
U/S 147/148/149/395
397/427/34 IPC
P.S. MANDAWALI
D.O.H. 26.03.2010
APPLICATION UNDER SECTIOIN 205 CR.P.C. FOR GRANT OF ON

BEHALF OF ACCUSED RAJEEV KUMAR FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION
OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
1 That the above noted case is pending before this

Hon’ble Court and fixed for today i.e. 26.03.2010.
2 That the applicant/accused is unable to appear
before this Hon’ble court today because he is
suffering from LT Hemiperises with LT Facial Poley
diseases (copy of medical documents attached) due
to which is on bed rest, hence this application.
3 That the non-appearance of the applicant/ accused
is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to
the above said reason.
Prayer:
It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble court
may kindly be pleased to grant exemption from his
personal appearance of the applicant/accused, in
Delhi:
Dated: 26.03.2010 APPLICANT/ ACCUSED
Through
COUNSEL
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMITABH RAWAT MM KKD COURTS,
DELHI
INRE
ICICI BANK LTD. V/S ANITA GOEL

U/S 138 N.I.ACT
C.C.NO.
D.O.H. 12.03.2010
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED ANITA GOEL FOR GRANT


Hon’ble Court and fixed for today.
before this Hon’ble court because the applicant
was present in the court in morning, but the court
staff told to the accused that the case has been
fixed for further hearing after lunch, but the
applicant/accused was in confusion and sent to her
house, hence this application.
3 That the non-appearance of the applicant/ accused
is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to
the reason aforesaid.
Prayer:

may kindly be pleased to grant exemption from her
personal appearance of the applicant/accused, in
Delhi:

THROUGH
Counsel
(MAMTA RATHORE)ADV.
THE COURT OF MS SHIVALI SHARMA MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE
SUNITA JAIN V/S ASHFAQ KHAN

C.C. NO.
U/S 138 N.I.ACT
D.O.H. 12.3.2010
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED SUNITA JAIN FOR GRANT


Hon’ble Court and fixed for today.
2 That the applicant/complainant is unable to appear
before this Hon’ble court today because she is ill
and suffering from viral fever, hence this
application.
complainant is neither intentional nor deliberate
but due to the reason aforesaid.
Prayer:

may kindly be pleased to grant exemption from her
personal appearance of the applicant/ complainant,
in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 12.03.2010 APPLICANT/ COMPLAINANT

Through
ADARSH KUMAR(ADV.)
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K.KHANNA A.S.J. KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE
STATE V/S PRASHANT AGGARWAL

FIR NO. 260/2008
U/S 498/304B IPC
P.S.PANDAV NAGAR
D.O.H. 6.3.2010
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT SMT. RAJBALA /PW-3

FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
That the above noted case is pending before this

Hon’ble Court and fixed for 6.3.2010.
That the complainant is unable to appear before this
Hon’ble court today because she is teacher and
posted at G.B.S.S. School, Garhi, New Delhi-110065
and she is at her emergency duty in the
examination, hence this application.
That the non-appearance of the complainant person is
neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the
reason aforesaid.
Prayer:

may be pleased to grant exemption from his
personal appearance of the complainant today, in
Delhi:
Dated: 06.03.2010 COMPLAINANT
Through
COUNSEL
(SUDESH SHARMA)
IN THE COURT OF SH. AGNIHOTRI MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE
STATE V/S RITA & OTHERS

FIR NO. 256/2008
U/S 308/323/341/34 IPCC
P.S.KHAJOORI KHAS
D.O.H. 20.02.2010
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED GUDDU FOR GRANT OF

EXEMPTION FROM PERSONAL APPEARANCE

That the applicant/ accused is unable to appear
before this Hon’ble court today because due to
sudden death of his sister-in-law (Salaj) on
17.02.2010, he had to go to attend the funeral of
deceased at Village Thanupura, P.S. Mehona, Distt.
Bhind, M.P., hence this application.
That the non-appearance of the applicant/ accused is
reason aforesaid.
Prayer:

personal appearance of the applicant/ accused
person today, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 20.02.2010 APPLICANT/ accused

Through
(S.K.SHUKLA)
ADV.
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, 30TH
COUTS, KURLA MUMBAI,
INRE:
TATA MOTORS LTD V/S VIJAYU KUMAR AGGARWAL

C/O SHIV DAYAL AGGARWAL
TULSI NIKETAN GDA FLATS,
FLAT NO. 669, 2ND FLOOR,
GHAZIABAD, U.P.201303
C.C.NO. 3006073/SS/2009
U/S 138 N.I.ACT
D.O.H.18.02.2010
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED VIJAYU KUMAR AGGARWAL

FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM PERSONAL APPEARANCE

this Hon’ble Court and fixed for 18.02.2010.
2 That the applicant/ accused is unable to

because he is suffering from heart problems
and due to which he is not capable to long
traveling.
3 The Vakalatnama of the counsel of accused is

attached herewith.
4 That the non-appearance of the
applicant/accused person is neither
intentional nor deliberate but due to the
reason aforesaid.
Prayer:
It is, therefore, prayed that this
Hon’ble court may be pleased to grant
applicant/accused person today, in the
interest of justice.
Delhi:
Through
COUNSEL
(MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA)
EN.NO. UP-57/2002
AT: K-86, 4TH FLOOR,
PATEL HALL, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI-110032
‘
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
NEETU V/S AJAY

C.C.NO.
U/S 12 OF PWDV ACT
D.O.H.16.02.2010
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT NEETU FOR GRANT OF

That the above noted case is pending before

That the applicant/ COMPLAINANT is unable to

because she has been hospitalized due to her
serious illness and till day she is not in
position to read the papers prepared by her
counsel for submission before this Hon’ble
court, due to which the petitioner wants one
last opportunity to be submitted her WS and
other documents in respect of said matter,
That the non-appearance of the applicant/
COMPLAINANT person is neither intentional nor
deliberate but due to the reason aforesaid.
Prayer:
It is, therefore, prayed that this
Hon’ble court may be pleased to grant
applicant/ COMPLAINANT person today, in the
Delhi:
Dated: 16.02.2010 APPLICANT/ COMPLAINANT
Through
COUNSEL
EN.NO. UP-57/2002
AT: K-86, 4TH FLOOR,
IN THE COURT OF MS SARITA BIRNAL A.S.J. KKD COURTS,
DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S RAHUL

FIR NO. 25/2002
U/S 21/85 NDPS ACT
P.S. KAMLA MARKET
D.O.H. 05.02.2010
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION

FROM PERSONAL APPEARANCE

That the applicant/accused is unable to appear
before this Hon’ble court today because he has
gone to Amritsar Punjab, due to sudden death of
his Uncle Jawahar Lal, which information has been
received by the counsel for accused on his mobile
last night, hence this application.
That the non-appearance of the applicant/accused is
reason aforesaid.
Prayer:

personal appearance of the applicant/accused
today, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
through
(COUNSEL)
IN THE COURT OF SH. K.S. PAL A.S.J. KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
BSES V/S MOHD. YASIN

C.C. NO. 530/208
U/S 135 E.ACT
D.O.H. 29.01.2010
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ALL ACCUSED FOR GRANT OF

EXEMPTION FROM THEIR PERSONAL APPEARANCE
1 That the applicant Mohd. Asif is the son and

brother of all the other accused persons and as
well as co-accused in the above noted case
which is pending before this Hon’ble court.
2 That today one another case i.e. Domestic

Violence is also pending before this Hon’ble
court which was fixed for today.
3 That the accused persons were not aware about

the date of hearing in the present case, so
they did not come to attend the present case.
4 That the applicant/accused had come to attend

the other case of domestic violence then he
came to know about the date of the present
case, hence this application.
Prayer:

court may be pleased to grant exemption from the
personal appearance of the other ACCUSED persons
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF SH. K.S. PAL A.S.J. KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
BSES V/S MOHD. YASIN

C.C. NO. 530/208
U/S 135 E.ACT
D.O.H. 29.01.2010
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION

FROM PERSONAL APPEARANCE

That the applicant/ ACCUSED is unable to appear
before this Hon’ble court today because he
is suffering from FEVER, hence this
application.
ACCUSED is neither intentional nor deliberate
Prayer:
court may be pleased to grant exemption from his
personal appearance of the applicant/ ACCUSED
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF SH. S.P.S. LALER M.M. PATIALA HOUSE

COURTS, NEW DEHLI
INRE:
HARPAL SETHI V/S RAJKUMAR

C.C.NO.
U/S 138 N.I.ACT
D.O.H. 27.01.2009
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED RAJKUMAR

FOR GRANT OF EXEMPTION FROM PERSONAL APPEARANCE

That the applicant/ ACCUSED is unable to appear
before this Hon’ble court today because he
is suffering from P.U.O. (FEVER), his doctor
has given advised him to take rest since
25.01.2010 to 27.01.2010, hence this
application.
That the accused/applicant is ready to
compromise with the complainant.
ACCUSED is neither intentional nor deliberate
Prayer:

personal appearance of the applicant/ ACCUSED
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF MS SUNAINA SHARMA MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S INDER KUMAR SHARMA

FIR NO.602/004
U/S 498A/406/34 IPC
P.S. PANDAV NA
D.O.H. 19.01.2010
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS NAMED

LAJJAWTI, ARCHANA AND MONIKA SHARMA FOR GRANT OF

That the applicant/accused is unable to

because he is suffering from cold and fever,

Prayer:

personal appearance of the applicant/ accused
Delhi:
Through
IN THE COURT OF SH.K.S. PAL JUDGE ELECTRICITY KKD

COURTS, DELIH
INRE:
BSES V/S RAJPAL & OTHERS

U/S 138 N.I.ACT
P.S. KESHAV PURAM

D.O.H. 31.10.2009
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED FOR EXEMPTION FROM

PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND STAY OF EXECUTED NBWs TILL THE
FILLING OF APPLCIATION OF CANCELLATION OF NBWs
Hon’ble Sir,
It is most respectfully submitted as under:-
1 That the above noted case is pending for

adjudication before this Hon’ble Court and
fixed for today i.e. 31.10.2009.
2 That the applicant/ accused is unable to
because he out of station for religious
purpose at Haridwar, which information has
been received by the counsel for the
applicant/accused on phone given by the son
of accused early in morning, hence this
application.
3 That absence of the applicant/ accused is
neither intentional nor willful but due to
above said reason.
Prayer:

court may kindly be pleased to grant exemption to
the applicant/accused from his personal appearance
for today and execution of stay of NBWs till the
filing of the application for cancellation of NBWs
be ordered, in the interest of justice.
It is prayed accordingly.
Delhi:
Through
SURENDER SINGH(ADV.)
THE COURT OF SH. LALIT KUMAR MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
CENTURIAN BANK OF PUNJAB V/S DEEPAK CHADHA

C.C.2920/07
U/S 138 N.I.ACT
P.S. PREET VIHAR
D.O.H. 03.02.2010
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM PERSONAL APPEARANCE ON

BEHALF OF COMPLIANANT KUMARI NEHA MALA
Hon’ble Sir,
4 That the above noted case is pending for

adjudication before this Hon’ble Court and
fixed for today i.e. 05.10.2009.
5 That the applicant/ complainant is

unable to appear before this Hon’ble court
today because She is suffering from fever,
6 That absence of the applicant/

complainant is neither intentional nor
willful but due to above said reason.
7 That the applicant/ complainant

undertake to appear before this Hon’ble court
on each and every date of hearing as and when
required.
Prayer:

court may be pleased to grant exemption from
her personal appearance of the applicant/
complainant for today only in the interest of
justice.
SDelhi:
Through
RAMKUMAR & PRAMOD KUMAR (ADV.)
hrough
RAMKUMAR & PRAMOD KUMAR (ADV.)
THE COURT OF MS MONA KERKETA LD. MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
ICICI V/S NITISH KUMAR SINHA

U/S 138 N.I.ACT
C.C.
P.S.
D.O.H. 01.10.2009

BEHALF OF ACCUSED
Hon’ble Sir,
1 That the applicant/accused has been suffering

from mouth cancer and he has to be operated on
tomorrow in AIIMS and has been admitted there
so that he is unable to appear before this
Hon’ble court today and his mother has stated
to his counsel yester night, hence this
application.
2 That the applicant/accused want to settle the

matter and he wants one more opportunity after
Deepawali festival.
3 That absence of the applicant/ accused is

above said reason.
Prayer:

his personal appearance of the applicant/
accused for today only in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
(S.K.SINGH)
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI M.M. KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S SURAJ PAL

FIR NO. 80/2008
U/S 304A IPC
P.S. KARAWAL NAGAR
D.O.H. 17.08.2009

BEHALF OF ACCUSED SURAJPAL
Sir,
1 That the concerned I.O. has been filed the

challan before this Hon’ble court today i.e.
17.08.2009.
2 That the above noted accused person on police
bail and the accused person can not attend the
Hon’ble court today because his mother is very
serious and she is fighting between life and
death and there is no person in his house to
lookafter his mother.
before this Hon’ble court today due to above
said reason.
4 That absence of the applicant/accused is
above said reason.
5 That the applicant/accused undertakes to appear
before this Hon’ble court on each and every
date of hearing as and when required.
Prayer:

his personal appearance of the applicant/
petitioner for today only in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Through
(RAM KUMAR) ADV.
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTSYA PARMACHALA CCJ/MM KKD

COURTS DELHI
INRE:
G.E. COUNTRYWIDE V/S JAGDISH KUMAR

S/O SH. SHEESH RAM
R/O 202-A, ST.NO.2,
PARWANA ROAD
KHUREJI KHAS, DELHI
C.C. NO. 11569/2007
U/S 138 N.I.ACT
P.S. PREET VIHAR
D.O.H. 04.07.2009
APPLICATION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF PROCESS U/S 82/83 CR.P.C.

AND EXEMPTION FROM PERSONAL APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF
APPLICANT/ACCUSED JAGDISH KUMAR
Sir,
1 That my client Charan Das running in the age of

more than 90 years has already sold the
property bearing No. 2056, Gali No.1, Rajgarh
Colony, Near Stadium, Gandhi Nagar, Delh to
Subhash Chand Sabharwal R/o 1/1389, Rajgarh
Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031.
2 That the transfer of the property was executed
through General power of attorney at SDM Court,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi on 27.03.1980.
3 That one person namely Amar Nath Vashish R/o K-

83, Shyam Nagar, New Delhi-110018 advanced the
loan on that property after the so long period
from your bank i.e. the Bombay Mercantile Co-
Op.Bank Ltd. Darya Ganj, Delhi.
4 That later on the borrower of the loan became
black listed through you and you prosecute him
in a matter at Registrar of Society, Old
Secretariat in which few connection was shown
on the said property and shown that the
property is still on the name of my client Sh.
Charan Das.
5 That later on my client took the stay order
from the double bench of Justice Hon’ble Sh.
B.N. Kripal, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi,
thereafter the matter of proceeded Ex-parte.
6 That the copy of order of stay from Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi was submitted at Registrar
of Society, ParliameSnt Street, New Delhi,
through there the then counsel Sh. Madhusudan
Sharma Shastri.
7 That the award of the recovery was passed on
03.06.1989 and the order of the state from the
Hon’ble High Court was passed on 22.01.1990,
the copy of the same was also furnished at
Registrar of Societies, Parliament Street, New
Delhi.
8 That the sister of my client namely Tulsa Devi

is also the party in the said matter which is
pending in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

this Hon’ble court and fixed for today i.e.
04.07.2009.
2 That the applicant/accused could not appear

before this Hon’ble court on last date of
hearing, he had not served any notice of
appearance of the accused/applicant and only
the family of the applicant came to known
about the proceeding of the case when the
process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. was dismissed at the
house of the applicant/accused last week.
3 That the applicant/accused is out of station

since last two month for his job and he has
no information of proceedings of this case
because he is not in touch with his family
for the last 10-12 days and will return to
Delhi after 15.07.2009.
4 That absence of the APPLICANT/ accused was

above said reason.
Prayer:
It is, therefore most respectfully prayed

that the process U/s 82/83 Cr.P.C. may kindly
be withdrawn and the applicant may kindly be
exempted for today only in the interest of
justice.
Through
(SHEESH RAM)
FATHER OF ACCUSED
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAM LAL MEENA M.M. KKD COURTS,
DELHI
INRE:
CHANDA V/S PREM PAL

C.C.NO. 5433/2008
FIR NO. 81/2008
P.S. FARSH BAZAR
APPLICATION FOR SEEKING PERMISSION TO INSPECT THE CASE

FILE
Sir,

this Hon’ble court.
2 That the applicant is the complainant in this
case and wants to inspect the case file for
necessary purpose, hence this application.
Prayer:

court may be pleased to allow this
application and permission be granted to
applicant to inspect the case file, in the
Dated: 24.07.2009 APPLICANT/COMPLAINANT
(CHANDA)
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAM LAL MEENA M.M. KKD COURTS,
DELHI
INRE:
CHANDA V/S PREM PAL

C.C.NO. 5433/2008
FIR NO. 81/2008
P.S. FARSH BAZAR

FILE
Sir,

necessary purpose, hence this application.
Prayer:

Dated: 24.07.2009 APPLICANT/COMPLAINANT
(CHANDA)
IN THE COURT OF SH. P.S. TEJI A.S.J. KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S JOGINDER SINGH

FIR NO. 350/2007
U/S 308 IPC
P.S. FARSH BAZAR
D.O.H. 8.10.2009

FILE
Sir,
1 That the above noted case is pending

before this Hon’ble court.
2 That the applicant is the accused in this
case and wants to inspect the case file
for necessary purpose, hence this
application.
Prayer:

Dated: 05.10.2009 APPLICANT/ACCUSED
(JOGINDER SINGH)
IN THE COURT OF SH. ______________ MM DWARKA COURTS,
DELHI
INRE:
BARCLAYS BANK LTD. V/S ASHWANI KUMAR GARG

C.C.NO.
U/S 138 N.I.ACT
P.S.
D.O.H. 05.05.2009

BEHALF OF ACCUSED
Sir,

05.05.2009.
2 That the ACCUSED is unable to appear before

this Hon’ble court today because due to some
urgent piece of work he went to out of state as
he has no knowledge about the case because on
last date of hearing i.e. 29.04.2009 the said
matter of fixed for allocation before Hon’ble
ACMM, KKD Court, but on that day there was
strike due to which counsel for both side could
not appeared before this Hon’ble court, hence
this application.
3 That absence of the ACCUSED is neither

intentional nor willful but due to above said
reason and he undertakes to appear before this
Hon’ble court.
Prayer:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed
that the accused may kindly be exempted for
today from his personal appearance before
this Hon’ble court, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 05.05.2009 Accused
THROUGH
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF SH.RAJ KAPOOR A.S.J. KKD COURTS, DELHI

INRE:
STATE V/S SHIV KUMAR MISHRA

FIR NO. 577/2006
U/S 308/506/34 IPC
P.S. KHAJOORI KHAS
D.O.H. 30.05.2009

BEHALF OF PW(S) RAKESH S/O AMAR SINGH, GHASU @ SATYAVAN
S/O BHALEEM RAM, DEEPAK KUMAR MANGLA S/O HUKUM CHAND
Sir,

30.05.2009.
2 That the above named witnesses are unable to

appear before this Hon’ble court today because
the accused persons keep on threatening to
kill the witness in future if the witness give
their evidence before court, in this connection
earlier an application had been moved to take
protection but gone in vain due to which the
applicants/witnesses has fear that accused may
kill the witnesses therefore the police
protection is necessary for witnesses, hence
this application.
Prayer:
that the witnesses may kindly be exempted for
today from their personal appearance before
this Hon’ble court, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 30.04.2009 witnesses
THROUGH
S.K.SHUKLA(ADV.)
IN THE COURT OF SH. S.K.SHARMA A.S.J. KKD COURT DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S MEHFOOZ ALI @ BOBY

FIR NO. 505/2006
U/S 302/34 IP
P.S. SHAHDARA
D.O.H. 18.04.2009
APPLICATION FOR GIVING INFORMATION REGARDING THE

ABOVE SAID ACCUSED WHO IS IN J.C. THROUGH
APPLICANT/SURETY YAKOOB
Sir,

18.04.2009.
2 That the above named accused is in J.C. since
long time in another case vide FIR No. 297/2008
U/s 147/148/302/34 IPC, P.S. Seelampur, Delhi
hence this application which is being given by
the surety of the accused Yakoob.
Prayer:

that this Hon’ble may kindly be pleased to
taken in record the above information and
accused be called through production warrant
in this case, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 18.04.2009 APPLICANT/ SURETY
YAKOOB
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAM LAL MEENA MM KKD COURTS, DELHI

INRE:
STATE V/S ADESH KUMAR

FIR NO. 213/2008
U/S 279/337 IPC
P.S.FARSH BAZAR
D.O.H. 12.07.2010
APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF NBW ISSUED AGAINST THE
ACCUSED ADESH KUMAR AND ALSO RESTORATION OF PREVIOUS
SURETY BOND IF FORFEITED

before this Hon’ble court and fixed for
12.07.2010.
2 That the applicant/ accused could not

appear before this Hon’ble court on last
date of hearing i.e. 23.04.2010 because the
accused wrongly noted down the date of
hearing i.e. 28.04.2010 and when he
approached to court then he came to know that
case was fixed for 23.04.2010 and due to non-
appearance NBW had been issued against him.
3 That absence of the accused was neither

reason and he undertakes to appear before
this Hon’ble court as and when directed.
Prayer:

that the accused may kindly be pleased to
cancel the NBW issued against the accused, in
this case, and also restore the previous
surety bond if forfeited, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOKESH KUMAR M.M. KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S SHEHZAD

FIR NO. 434/2005
U/S 25/54/59 A.ACT
P.S. SHAHDARA
D.O.H. 6.08.2010
ACCUSED SHEHZAD

adjudication before this Hon’ble court and is
fixed for 6.08.2010.
hearing because during the said period, the
wife of accused was ill due to her last stage
of pregnancy due to which he had to stay at his
home for her care, while due to non-appearance
NBW had been issued against him.
reason and he undertakes to appear before this
Hon’ble court as and when directed.
Prayer:

that this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased
to cancel the NBW issued against the accused,
Delhi:
Through
Counsel

INRE:
STATE v/s ROOP CHAND ETC.

FIR NO. 284/2006
U/S 506/34 IPC
P.S. GOKAL PURI
N.D.O.H. 08.07.2010
APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BW ISSUED AGAINST THE

ACCUSED BHARAT & JAGAT DHAMA
Sir,

this Hon’ble court and fixed for 08.07.2010.
2 That the applicant/ accused could not appear
before this Hon’ble court on 05.04.2010,
because on that due to serious illness of his
mother they had to go to their native place to
look after their mother while due to non-
appearance NBW has been issued against him.
3 That absence of the accused were neither

reason and they undertake to appear before this
Hon’ble court as and when required.
Prayer:

cancel the NBW issued against the accused
persons, in this case, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 08.04.2010 APPLICANTS/ ACCUSED

PERSONS
Through
COUNSEL
(RAM KUMAR SHARMA)

IN THE COURT OF SH. LOKESH KUMAR A.C.M.M. DISTT. NORTH
EAST, KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S GULFAM & OTHERS

U/S 379/411 IPC
FIR NO. 278/2001
P.S. SHAHDARA,
D.O.H.01.07.2010
L.D.O.H. 31.03.2010

ACCUSED PRAVEEN AND FOR RESTORATION OF PREVIOUS SURETY
BOND
Sir,

01.07.2010.
before this Hon’ble court on 31.03.2010
because on that date another case was fixed
in Merrut Court U.P. in court of No.5, P.S.
Civil Line, U/s 379/411 IPC vide case 9/2009.
3 That on last date of hearing i.e. 24.11.2009
two case No. 278/2001 and another 306/2001,
the Hon’ble court listed the case for
31.03.2010 and 09.04.2010, but the accused
was in impression that both cases were fixed
for 09.04.2010, while due to non-appearance
NBW had been issued against the accused.
this Hon’ble court as and when required.
Prayer:
this case, and previous surety bond be
restored if forfeited, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
(RAM KUMAR SHARMA)
INRE:
STATE V/S DHONI & OTHERS

U/S 354/506/34 IPC
FIR NO. 284/2008
P.S. KHAJOORI
D.O.H.30.03.2010

ACCUSED DHONI & NARENDER AND FOR RESTORATION OF
PREVIOUS SURETY BOND
Sir,
today i.e. 30.03.2010.
2 That the applicants/ accused persons could
not appear before this Hon’ble court

today in time because they were hatched
up in traffic jam and when they approached
to court, his name had been called and due
to non-appearance NBW had been issued
against him.
3 That delay/ absence of the accused were
above said reason and they undertake to
appear before this Hon’ble court as and
when required.
4 That the applicants/accused persons also
wants to submit the bail bond in this
case.
Prayer:
cancel the NBW issued against the accused
persons, in this case, and previous surety
bond be restored if forfeited and accept the
bail bond, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Through
(VED PRAKASH) ADV.
‘
‘’
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
FULLERTON INDIA CREDITS V/S RAKESH KUMAR

U/S 138 N.I.ACT
C.C.NO. 507/2008
D.O.H.30.03.2010

ACCUSED RAKESH KUMAR AND FOR RESTORATION OF PREVIOUS
SURETY BOND
Sir,
30.03.2010.
2 That the applicant/ accused came to attend
this Hon’ble court on 28.02.2010 as the case
was fixed on that day but on 28.02.2010 was
declared holiday, being Holi. On 28.02.2010,
the applicant/accused went to his native
place to celebrate Holi and could return from
his native place, only on or about
20.03.2010.
3 That the surety of the applicant/accused
received notice 446 Cr.P.c. and he informed
about the same to the accused and the accused
came to know that this hon’ble court was
pleased to issue non-bailable warrants
against the accused.

Prayer:
this case and previous surety bond be
restored, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 27.03.2010 APPLICANT

(RAKESH
KUMAR)
IN THE COURT OF SH. __________________ MM KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S TEHSIN

U/S 25/54/59 A.ACT
FIR NO. 281/2006
P.S. SEELAM PUR
D.O.H.
ACCUSED TEHSIN AND FOR RESTORATION OF PREVIOUS SURETY
BOND
Sir,

this Hon’ble court and fixed for
________________.

hearing because due to an accident he
forgotten his date of hearing, while due to
non-appearance NBW had been issued against
him.

Prayer:
this case and previous surety bond be
restored, if forfeited, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE MM PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW
DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S SATISH KUMAR

FIR NO. 185/2008
U/S 279/337 IPC
P.S. CONNAUGHT PLACE
N.D.O.H.
L.D.O.H. 24.03.2010
APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF NBW ON BEHALF OF THE

ACCUSED SATISH KUMAR AND ALSO RESTORATION OF PREVIOUS
SURETY BOND
Sir,
It is most respectfully submitted as under:

___________.
2 That the accused person could not appear

before this Hon’ble court on last dates
of hearing because the accused person
and his counsel wrongly noted down the
date of hearing i.e. 10.12.2009 in place
of 02.12.2009, but the accused person
approached on 10.12.2009, but he found
name of the accused was not mentioned in
cause list and when he approached ahlmad
then he told to accused that the said case
has been listed on 2.12.2009.
3 That on 25,.03.2010, the accused person

could not appear before this Hon’ble court
today in time, because he hatched up in
heavy traffic jam and when he approached
to court his name had been called and
again he was absented in court.
4 That in the absence of the accused ,NBW

had been issued against him, hence this
application.
5 That the absence of accused person was

above said reason and undertake to appear
before this Hon’ble court on each and
every date of hearing.
Prayer:

to cancel the NBW issued against the ACCUSED
in this case and also previous surety bond be
justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 25.03.2010 APPLICANTS/ACCUSED
THROUGH
(RAM KUMAR)
ADV.
CH.NO. E-411, KKD COURTS, DELHI
IN THE COURT OF MS MONA KERKETTA MM KKD COURTS DELHI

INRE:
SATYA PRAKASH V/S VINOD GUPTA
C.C. 4582/2009
U/S 138 N.I.ACT
P.S. PREET VIHAR
N.D.O.H. 26.03.2010
L.D.O.H. 23.02.2010
APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF NBW ON BEHALF OF THE
ACCUSED VINOD GUPTA
Sir,
26.03.2010.
hearing because since 28.01.2010 to
29.01.2010 his wife was admitted in
hospital due to illness and thereafter she
gave birth to her child on 12.03.2010
since the wife of accused suffered from
Jaundice due to which he had to remained
at home for lookafter his wife and infant
child as the accused has been residing
separate with his wife, while due to non-
appearance NBW had been issued against
them.
3 That the absence of accused person was
above said reason and undertake to appear
before this Hon’ble court on each and
Prayer:
in this case and also restored the previous
surety bond, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 23.03.2010 APPLICANTS/ACCUSED
THROUGH
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNITA GUPTA D.J. & S.J. KKD COURTS
DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S SANJAY ETC.

FIR NO. 159/2009
U/S 307 IPC
P.S. SHAHDARA
D.O.H. 19.04.2010
APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF WARRANT ON BEHALF OF

THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES JOGINDER AND SMT. MEENA
Sir,

19.04.2010.
2 That the applicants are the prosecution

witnesses in the above noted case and this
Hon’ble court issued summons for giving
evidence before this Hon’ble court but due
to some personal reasons the applicants
could not appear before this Hon’ble court
and due to non-appearance of the
applicants warrant had been issued against
them.
3 That the absence of applicants was neither

intentional nor willful but due to above
said reason and they undertake to appear
before this Hon’ble court as and when they
were directed.
Prayer:

to cancel the warrant issued against the
Applicants in this case, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 22.03.2010 APPLICANTS
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURAN CHAND MM KKD COURTS, DELHI

INRE:
STATE V/S PARVEEN

C.C.NO.
U/S 138 N.I.ACT
P.S. PREET
VIHAR
N.D.O.H. 10.05.2010
L.D.O.H.03.03.2010
ACCUSED SONIA SANDHU AND ALSO FOR RESTORATION OF
PREVOUS SURETY BOND
Sir,

10.05.2010.
5 That the applicant/accused could not

date of hearing i.e. 3.3.2010 because on
that day she was suffering from
dehydration due to which she was on bed
rest while due to non-appearance NBW had
been issued against the accused despite
filing of application which was dismissed.
6 That absence of ACCUSED person was neither

said reason and she undertakes to appear
as and when he is directed by this Hon’ble
court.
Prayer:
in this case and previous surety bond be
justice.
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKUR JAIN MM KKD COURT, DELHI
INRE
STATE V/S GAFFAR

FIR NO. 866/2006
U/S 25 A.ACT
P.S. WELCOME
L.D.O.H. 07.11.2009
N.D.O.H. 29.04.2010

ACCUSED GAFFAR AND ALSO FOR RESTORATION OF PREVIOUS
SURETY BOND
Sir,

29.04.2010.
That the accused could not appear before this
Hon’ble court on last date of hearing i.e.
7.11.2009 because he wrongly noted down
the wrong date of hearing 05.03.2010 also
the counsel for accused wrongly noted the
said date (the copy of diary attached)
while due to non-appearance NBW has been
issued against him in this case against
the accused this fact came into the
knowledge of accused when he approached to
court on 5.3.2010, hence this application.
That absence of ACCUSED was neither
said reason and he undertakes to appear
before this Hon’ble court as and when
directed.
Prayer:
and previous surety bond be restored if
forfeited in this case, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Dated:06.03.2010 Applicant/Accused
Through
(SANJEEV KUMAR)adv.
Adv.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR GAUTAM MM KKD COURTS
DELHI
INRE
STATE V/S PRASHANT RAGHAV & OTHERS

FIR NO. 309/2003
U/S 419/420/467/34 IPC
P.S. MAYUR VIHAR
L.D.O.H. 04.01.2010
N.D.O.H. 17.03.2010

ACCUSED PRASHANT RAGHAV AND ALSO FOR RESTORATION OF
Sir,
2 That on 13.02.2009 NBW had been issued against
him due to non-appearance and on 22.08.2009 the
applicant/accused had moved an application for
cancellation of NBW, consequently the NBW was
stay till 03.01.2010.

3 That on 3.01.2010 there was holiday of Sunday,
consequently on 4.01.2010 the accused could not
appear before this Hon’ble court, after that
w.e.f 2.1.2010 to 08.01.2010 he was ill ( copy
of medical certificate attached).
4 That absence of ACCUSED was neither intentional
nor willful but due to above said reason and he
undertakes to appear before this Hon’ble court
as and when directed.
Prayer:
forfeited in this case, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Dated:04.03.2010 Applicant/Accused
Through
(RAM KUMAR SHARMA)
Adv.
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KAPOOR ASJ KKD COURTS DELHI
INRE
STATE V/S BILAL & OTHERS

FIR NO.
U/S
P.S. M.S. PARK
D.O.H.

ACCUSED PERSON NAMELY MOHD. ALAM S/O MOHD. KASIM R/O C-
116, BLCOK-C, LAL KUAN BADARPUR, DELHI-110044
Sir,

_________.
hearings i.e. on 25.01.2010 as his mother
was seriously ill and he was at his native
place to look after her and his son came
here to the court to give the exemption of
the accused to the court but when he
reached to the court, his name had been
called the due to non-appearance he was
marked absent in this case but he was not
disclosed that NBW has been issued against
his father.
3 That on 25.01.2010 due to his absent by
above said reason, this Hon’ble court was
pleased to issue NBW against him and
notice to his surety.
4 That when he came back to Delhi from his
native place then he came to know that the
next date of hearing of the case was
15.02.2010 and he presented before this
Hon’ble court but he has no knowledge
about the NBW issued against him, so this
Hon’ble court taken him into custody and
sent him to J.C. and since 15.02.2010 he
is in J.C.
said reason and he undertakes to appear
directed.
Prayer:
person and previous surety bond be restored
if forfeited in this case, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Dated:25.02.2010 Applicants/Accused
through
counsel
IN THE COURT OF SH. R.L.MEENA MM KKD COURTS DELHI
INRE
STATE V/S AJAY CHAUDHARY & OTHERS

FIR NO. 230/2006
U/S 419/420/468/471/34 IPC
P.S. FARSH BAZAR
D.O.H. 26.02.2010

ACCUSED PERSON NAMELY AJAY LOHIYA AND ALSO FOR
RESTORATION OF PREVIOUS SURETY BOND
Sir,

That on 27.07.2010, an application for
exemption was moved by his counsel without
knowing any reason, while on that day
unfortunately the applicant met with an
accident, ( copy of medical record attached)
due to which the applicant/accused had no
knowledge about further date of hearing.
That on 24.02.2010 the applicant/accused was
out of state, while the police official of
P.S. Farsh Bazar approached to House of
applicant/accused and in his absence the
police informed to his family members about
issuance of NBW against them, then the family
members of accused contacted him and the
accused contacted his counsel.
That today the counsel for accused inspected
the case file then he came to know that NBW
has been issued against him on 27.07.2009 and
7.10.2009.
That absence of ACCUSED person was neither
this Hon’ble court as and when directed.
Prayer:
person and previous surety bond be restored
if forfeited in this case, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Dated:25.02.2010 Applicants/Accused
through
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMITABH RAWAT MM KKD COURT DELHI
INRE:
MCD V/S DHANRAJ

CASE NO.
U/S
P.S. GHONDA
D.O.H. 03.02.2010
L.D.O.H. 20.01.2010

ACCUSED PERSON DHANRAJ
Sir,

03.02.2010.
That The applicant is the Government employee

and is working as Director, Investigation
and Inspection in the Ministry of
Corporate Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, New
Delhi.
That on 20.01.2010, the applicant/accused was

engaged in official meeting and as such
could not appear in the Hon’ble Court at
the time when the case was called,
however, the applicant sent his Peon for
the disposal of the above said challan,
who appeared before this Hon’ble court and
requested the Hon’ble court for
adjournment the case and he informed the
undersigned accused the next date for
28.01.2010.
That when the accused/applicant attended this

Hon’ble court on today, he came to know
that this Hon’ble court has been pleased
to issued NBW against the accused for
3.2.2010.
That absence of ACCUSED person were neither

said reason and he undertakes to appear as
and when they are directed by this Hon’ble
court.
Prayer:

person in this case, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 28.01.2010 APPLICANT/ACCUSED PERSON
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDER MISHRAS MM KKD COURT DELHI

INRE:
STATE V/S YASIN

FIR NO. 447/2009
U/S 379/411 IPC
P.S. GOKAL PURI
D.O.H.16.02.2010
APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF NBW ISSUED AGAINST

ACCUSED YASIN S/O SH. NAZIR ALI
Sir,

16.02.2010.

date of hearing because during the said
period he was out of station due to his
job while due to non-appearance BW had
been issued against him AND also notice
U/s 446 Cr.P.C. has been issued to his
surety Smt. Meena.
3 That the absence of the applicant/ accused

was neither intentional nor willful but
due to above said reason and he undertake
to appear as and when he is directed by
Prayer:
to cancel the NBWs issued against the accused
justice.
Delhi:
Dated:15.02.2010 APPLICANT/ accused
Through
(MEENA)
MOTHER OF ACCUSED
(S.K.SHUKLA)ADV.
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K.GULIA MM KKD COURT DELHI
INRE:
SUNIL KUMAR JAIN V/S MONISON MARKETING Pvt. Ltd.

U/S 138 N.I.Act
P.S. GANDHI NAGAR
C.C.NO. 5769/2007
D.O.H. 12.02.2010
APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF NBW ISSUED AGAINST

ACCUSED SMT. LALITA BUDHIRAJA
Sir,

12.02.2010.

date of hearing because no summon of
notice had been received by the accused
while due to non-appearance NBW had been
issued against her.
6 That the absence of the applicant/ accused

due to above said reason and she undertake
to appear as and when she is directed by
Prayer:
justice.
Delhi:
Dated: APPLICANT/ accused
Through
Counsel
(RAJEEV KUMAR JHA)
IN THE COURT OF SH. LALIT KUMAR MM KKD COURTS, DELHI

INRE:
REKHA HALDAR @ REKHA SARKAR V/S NEPAL SINGH

U/S 138 N.I.ACT
C.C.NO. 8/2009
P.S. SEEMA PURI
D.O.H.
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE SURETY NAMED DEEPAK GARG

S/O SH. RAJ KUMAR GARG TO PRODUCE THE ACCUSED NEPAL
SINGH
Sir,

before this Hon’ble court and fixed
for______.
2 That the accused could not appear before

this Hon’ble court on last date of hearing
due to which NBW had been issued against
him and also notice U/s 446 Cr.P.C. had
been issued to the surety and according to
the said notice, the surety has to appear
before this Hon’ble court along with
surety and when the surety appeared before
this Hon’ble court today, but
unfortunately he could approached to court
with little late and his name had been
called and thereafter, the Hon’ble court
Issued attachment order against the
surety.
Prayer:

to cancel the notice U/s 446 Cr.P.C. and also
cancel the attachment warrant of surety in
this case, and time be given to surety so
that he could produce the accused before this
Hon’ble court in future, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Dated: APPLICANT/ surety
Through
(MOMIN KHAN) ADV.
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S MANOJ KUMAR ETC.

FIR NO.
U/S 25/54/59 A.ACT
P.S. DILSHAD GARDEN
N.D.O.H.
APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF NBW ISSUED AGIANST THE

ACCUSED MANOJ KUMAR
Sir,

20.01.2010.
That the applicant/accused could not appear

before this Hon’ble court on 20.01.2010
because on that he was held in heavy
traffic jam and when he approached to
court his name had been called and due to
non-appearance NBW had been issued against
him, hence this application.
That the absence of the applicant/accused was

above said reason and he undertakes to
appear as and when he is directed by this
Hon’ble court.
Prayer:
justice.
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
(BRAHAM PRAKASH)
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KAPOOR A.S.J KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S CHAND @ CHANDA
FIR NO.
U/S 394/397 IPC
P.S.WELCOME
D.O.H.25.01.2010

ACCUSED CHAND @ CHANDA
Sir,


before this Hon’ble court in time because he
was stood in front of Room No.60, as he had not
knowledge that the court has been shited to
room No.66 but when he came to know then he
approached to this Hon’ble court, but his name
had been called and due non-appearance NBW had
been issued against him, hence this
application.
3 That the absence of the accused was neither

reason and he undertakes to appear as and when
he is directed by this Hon’ble court.
Prayer:

justice.
Delhi:
(CHAND @ CHANDA)
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR MM KKD COURTS, DELHI

INRE:
STATE V/S PANKAJ SHARMA

FIR NO. 256/2005
U/S 279/338 IPC
P.S.VIVEK VIHAR
D.O.H. 03.05.2010
L.D.O.H. 2.7.2009

ACCUSED NAMELY PANKAJ SHARMA
Sir,
That this case was listed on 17.01.2009, onthat

day, a application for grant of exemption was
moved on behalf of accused, the same case was
adjourned for 7.11.2009 but on 7.11.2009 this
case was not mentioned in the court list,
despite many efforts, the case file could not
find out.
That after that applicant became ill due to sugar
and heart diseases.
That today the counsel for accused has inspected
the case file and find that due to some mistake
the case was listed on 2.7.2009 and in the
absence of applicant NBW has been issued of
3.5.2010.
That the absence of the accused was neither
he is directed by this Hon’ble court and also
ready to produce reliable surety for himself in
this case.
Prayer:

person in this case and previous surety bond
be restored, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
through
J.P.BANSAL
Adv.
IN THE COURT OF SH. S.K. ARORA MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S VIKRAM

FIR NO. 458/2002
U/S 379/411 IPC
P.S. PANDAV NAGAR
L.D.O.H. 02.12.2009
N.D.O.H. 11.03.2010

ACCUSED NAMED VIKRAM AND ALSO FOR RESTORATION OF
Sir,

Hon’ble court and fixed for 11.03.2010.
That the applicant/accused could not appear before
this Hon’ble court on last date of hearing i.e.
24.08.2009 AND 2.12.2009 because he was taken
in Custody on 7.8.2009 in case FIR
No._________, P.S. Tilak Marg, U/s 379/411 IPC,
by the court of Sh. ______________ Patiala
House Courts, New Delhi, while due non-
appearance NBWs were issued against the
accused, while he was released on ___12.2009,
That the absence of the accused was neither
Prayer:

Delhi:

Through
Counsel
(ROOP KISHORE)
INRE:

C.C.2920/07
U/S 138 N.I.ACT
P.S. PREET VIHAR
D.O.H. 03.02.2010

ACCUSED DEEPAK CHADHA
Sir,

1 That the above said case is pending before this
2 That the above said case was compromised

between the parties in mediation and the
accused person was directed to deposit the
compromise amount direct in Centurian bank,
when the accused person approached the said
branch he found that their were no branch in
the name of Centurian Bank he found that one
branch was exit there in the name of HDFC bank
so due to that reason the accused persons was
unable to deposit the money in the Centurian
bank when he enquired about the branch of
Centurian bank he may be suggested that the
authorized person of Centurian bank collected
the money at your house.
3 That on 17.01.2010 when the accused came to

Delhi he came to know that the police official
was asking about him in the above said case,
then the accused approached to the counsel and
after enquired he came to know that this
Hon’ble court has passed an order of NBW on
2.12.2009.
4 That the absence of the accused person was

above said reason and they undertakes to appear
court.
Prayer:

Delhi:
Through
Counsel
(R.K.SHARMA)

INRE:

C.C.2920/07
U/S 138 N.I.ACT
P.S. PREET VIHAR
D.O.H. 03.02.2010

ACCUSED PERSONS GAJE SINGH, RAJU & LOKESH AND ALSO FOR
RESTORATION OF PREVIOUS SURETY BOND
Sir,

6 That the counsel for accused persons appeare

before this Hon’ble court on behalf of accused
persons at morning then the matter was pass
over and after that due to non-appearance
NBWs were issued against the accused persosn
today, hence this application.
7 That the absence of the accused persons were

as and when they are directed by this Hon’ble
court.
Prayer:

Delhi:
Through
Counsel
(R.K.SHARMA)
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K. GULIA MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S VED PRAKASH SHARMA

FIR NO. 436/1999
U/S 7 PCR ACT
P.S. KRISHNA NAGAR
D.O.H. 21.01.2010

WITNESS SH. V.S. KARDAM R/O 397/7, WEST KANTI NAGAR,
DELHI-110051
Sir,

2 That the applicant/witness could not appear
hearing i.e. 4.12.2009 as he was told by the
Nayab Court that the applicant (V.S. Kardam)
will not be required to appear before the court
unless and untill he receives summon issued by
this Hon’ble court as the applicant has not
received any summon in this regard from the
Hon’ble court so he could not appear before the
Hon’ble court as and evidence witnesses on the
last date of hearing i.e. 4.12.2009 while due
to non-appearance NBW was issued against the
accused, hence this application.
3 That the absence of the witness was neither
Prayer:

Delhi:
Through
Counsel
(C.B.SINGH)
BEFORE HON’BLE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SAINI
ENCALVE, DELHI
INRE:
KAILASH SWAROOP V/S KIRAN KUMAR

C.C.
D.O.H. 04.01.2010

ACCUSED KIRAN KUMAR
Sir,


before this Hon’ble court on last dates of
hearing because no summon or notice was
received by the accused in this case, as the
accused had no information about the case since
the beginning of the case, while due to non-
appearance NBW had been issued against him,
6 That the absence of the accused person was

above said reason and he undertakes to appear
court.
Prayer:

person in this case in this case and previous
surety may kindly be restored in the
Delhi:
(KIRAN KUMAR)
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR MM KKD COURT, DELHI
INRE:
SATYA NARAIN V/S B.P.S. TOMAR

C.C.NO. 3428/2008
U/S 138 N.I.ACT
P.S.PREET VIHAR
D.O.H. 05.12.2009

ACCUSED B.P.S TOMAR
Sir,

hearing on 01.12.2009 because on that he was
held up in heavy traffic jam and when he
approached to court his name had been called
and due to non-appearance NBW had been issued
against, in this connection an application for
cancellation of NBW had been moved before this
Hon’ble court on same day which was fixed for
5.12.2009.
3 That today the applicant approached to court in
time and before calling he went to call his
counsel in between his name had been called and
the said application was dismissed, hence this
application.
4 That absence of the accused person was neither
Prayer:
to cancel the NBW issued against the accused
justice.
Delhi:
through
COUNSEL
(ANIL KUMAR)
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH PANDIT A.C.M.M. KKD COURTS,
DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S AKHTAR ETC.

FIR NO.456/2004
U/S 12/9/55
G.ACT
P.S.KRISHN NAGAR
D.O.H. 15.12.2009

ACCUSED PERSONS NAMED AKHTAR & ZAKI
Sir,
2 That on dt. 7.8.2008 both the accused persons
were appeared before concerned and thereafter
the date of hearing was given to them as
3.10.2008, but both the accused persons wrongly
noted down the date of hearing i.e. 10.04.2009.
3 That on 10.04.2009 when the accused persons
approached to court, then they came to know

that Court had been transferred and when the
accused persons tried to enquired the matter,
then a person misguided the accused persons
saying that when summon would be received by
them then come to court.
4 That on 09.12.2009 when the police officials
approached to house of accused then the accused
persons came to know that NBW has been issued
against them due to non-appearance on last
dates, therefore the accused persons
immediately contacted with his counsel and came
to this Hon’ble court with this application.
5 That the absence of the accused persons were
court.
Prayer:
person in this case in this case, in the
Delhi:
Dated: 10.12.2009 APPLICANTs/ACCUSED
PERSONS
THROUGH
ANKIT SRIVASTAVA
Advocate
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K.GAUTAM MM KKD COURT, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S BIRBAL MEHTO

FIR NO. 239/2009
u/s 279 IPC
P.S. NEW ASHOK NAGAR
D.O.H. 05.12.2009

ACCUSED BIRBAL AND ALSO FOR RESTORATION OF PREVIOUS
SURETY BOND AND ALSO PLEAD GUILTY
Sir,


before this Hon’ble court on today in time
because he was held up in heavy traffic jam
and when he approached to court his name had
been called and due to non-appearance NBW had
been issued against him due non-appearance,

4 That the applicant/accused has pleaded his

guilty and ready to pay the fine.
Prayer:

be restored and case may kindly be disposed
off, in this case, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
through
COUNSEL
(JITENDER SIROHI)
IN THE COURT OF SH. POORAN CHAND MM KKD COURT, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S RISH PAL ETC.
FIR NO. 133/2007
U/S 3/4/6/9/55 G.ACT
P.S.SHAKARPUR,
D.O.H. 04.12.2009
APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION U/S 70(2) CR.P.C.OF NBW
ISSUED AGIANST THE ACCUSED NAMED KAMAL S/O SHORAN
SINGH, 2. SUBESH S/O KIRAN PAL, BOTH R/O J.B. NAGAR,
U.P. AND ALSO FOR RESTORATION OF PREVIOUS SURETY BOND
Sir,
2 That the applicants/accused persons could not
appear before this Hon’ble court on last dates
of hearing i.e. 5.3.2009, 29.04.2009 and
01.09.2009 because after getting police bail
they have not received any summon or notice in
respect of hearing of this Hon’ble court but
when yesterday the police approached to house
of accused persons then they came to know that
NBW have been issued against them by this
Hon’ble court due to non-appearance, hence this
application.
3 That absence of the accused persons were
above said reason and they undertake to appear

court.
Prayer:
persons in this case and previous surety bond
be restored, in this case, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
through
COUNSEL
(RAM KUMAR SHARMA) ADV.
IN THE COURT OF SH. POORAN CHAND MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S KAPTAN

FIR NO. 347/2001
U/S 380/411 IPC
P.S.SHAKARPUR
L.D.O.H. 16.10.2009

ACCUSED AND ALSO FOR RESTORATION OF PREVIOUS SURETY
BOND
Sir,


before this Hon’ble court on last date
because the wife of accused named Usha was
expired who is also co-accused in this case, in
these circumstances, he was mentally disturb
and forgotten his dates of hearing while due
non-appearance, hence this application.

Prayer:

justice.
Delhi:
through
(POONAM RANI)
Advocate
IN THE COURT OF MS SUCHI SHAHMIRI MM KKD COURT, DELHI

INRE:
STATE V/S AKBAR MALIK

FIR NO. 272/2005
U/S 451/506/508/34 IPC
P.S. SEELAM PUR
N.D.O.H. 14.12.2009

BOND
Sir,


hearing because by mistake he wrongly noted
down the date of hearing 27.11.2009 in place of
17.11.2009 and when he approached to court
today in time then he came to know that case
was fixed for 17.11.2009 and due to non-
appearance NBW had been issued against him,

Prayer:
justice.
Delhi:
Through
(RAJ PAL SINGH)
Advocate
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHU GARG MM TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S UJJWAL

FIR NO. 336/2005
U/S 379/411 IPC
P.S. PATEL NAGAR
D.O.H. 26.03.2010

BOND
Sir,


hearing because the accused/applicant was
going to be appear in exam of B.A. Final Year
which was conducted by the University by the
BSEB University, Bihar at the centre LS
College, Mujaffarpur, Bihar. The
accused/applicant was appearing in exam during
the relevant date i.e. 13.10.2009 and last
papers was on 16.10.2009 and after completing
the exam the applicant/accused. It is
pertinent to mention here that the
applicant/accused has already instructed to his
counsel to get exemption from appearance of the
applicant/accused for the date fixed on
13.10.2009 and accordingly the counsel of the
applicant/accused tried to attend the said date
but due to traffic Jam could not reach before
the Hon’ble court at the time of calling of the
case. The proof of copy of exam is being
attached herewith.
3 That due to non-appearance of accused at the
time of calling of the case, the Hon’ble court
was pleased to issued NBW against the
applicant/accused and the accused/applicant was
in impression that the said date shall be
managed through counsel by getting exemption
from the court, but due to traffic jam counsel
could not appear before the Hon’ble court and
NBW was issued by this Hon’ble court against
the accused/applicant.
Prayer:

justice.
Delhi:
Through
(ANIL KUMAR SAXENA)
Advocate
IN THE COURT OF SH.SUDESH KUMAR MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
RAM VILAS GUPTA V/S THE STATE

FIR NO.245/2009
U/S 279/304A IPC
P.S. WELCOME
L.D.O.H.10.08.2009
N.D.O.H.23.11.2009

ACCUSED ABOVE NAMED AND ALSO FOR RESTORATION OF
Sir,
1 That the above noted case is

pending before this Hon’ble court and
fixed for 23.11.2009.
2 That the applicant/accused could

not appear before this Hon’ble court
on last date of hearing because during
the said period he had gone to his
native place in Bihar to attend the
marriage of his sister, but when the
surety told him about issuance of NBW
against him, then he came to know that
NBW has been issued against him due to
non-appearance on last date, hence this
application.
3 That absence of the accused person
due to above said reason and he
undertake to appear as and when he is
directed by this Hon’ble court.
Prayer:
justice.
Delhi:
Through
Counsel

DELHI
INRE:
ABHILASH COOPERATIVE SOCIETY V/S SANT SINGH

C.C.NO. VVV-2008
P.S. ANAND VIHAR
U/S 138 N.I.ACT
D.O.H. 22.01.2010
APPLICATION FOR PREPONEMENT OF CASE ON BEHHLAF OF

ACCUSED SANT SINGH
Sir,

2 That a long date has been given in the above

ntoed matter while a settlement has been done
between the parties outside the court amicably,
therefore the applicant wants a short date for
preponement, hence this application.
Prayer:
to allow this application and the case be
fixed for early hearing and notice be given
to complainant for disposal of case, in the
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
(A.ALI KHAN)
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KHANEGWAL MM KKD COURTS

DELHI
INRE:
VINOD KUMAR V/S LAXMI
U/S 138 N.I.ACT
C.C. NO. 158/2008
P.S. BHAJANPURA
D.O.H. 3.12.2009
APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BW ISSUED AGIANST THE

ACCUSED
Sir,


hearing i.e. 7.8.2009 as on that day she gone
to attend the death ceremony of her close
relative and also today she is unable to appear
before this Hon’ble court as she is ill ( copy
of medical certificate attached), while due to
non-appearance B.W. had been issued against her
on last date, in this case, hence this
application.
3 That absence of the applicant/accused was

above said reason.
Prayer:
to cancel the B.W. issued against the
applicant/accused in this case, in the
Delhi:
through
counsel
DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S SUNDER

FIR NO. 686/2007
U/S 392/365 IPC
P.S. ANAND VIHAR
L.D.O.H. 09.10.2009
N.D.O.H. 12.11.2009
APPLICATION OF EARLY HEARING FOR THE APPLICATION FILED

BY ACCUSED FOR CANCELLATION OF NBW ISSUED AGIANST THE
ACCUSED AND ALSO FOR THE STAY THE OPERATION OF NBW
Sir,

hearing because on that they he was suffering
from viral fever due to which he was on bed
rest while due to non-appearance NBW had been
issued against him, in this connection the
applicant had moved an application for
cancellation of NBW which has been fixed for
12.11.2009.
4 That a long date has been given, therefore the
applicant wants that the said application be
heard for early hearing for its disposal till
then NBW be stayed.
Prayer:
be restored and application be fixed for
early hearing till then NBW be stayed, in
this case, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
through
(COUNSEL)
(A.A.KHAN)
IN THE COURT OF MS SAVITRI M.M. KKD COURT, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S VIRENDER SINGH

FIR NO. 232/2003
U/S 61/1/14 EX. ACT
P.S. MANDAWALI
N.D.O.H. 11.01.2010
APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BW ISSUED AGIANST THE

ACCUSED
Sir,

2 That the applicant/accused could not appear before
this Hon’ble court on last date of hearing i.e.
29.09.2009 because he had not hear his call and
due to which BW had been issued against him, in
this connection an application for cancellation of
BW had been filed before this Hon’ble court which
was fixed for 07.10.2009,but on that day the
Hon’ble court was on leave and case was fixed
5.11.2009,but today the application filed by the
applicant has been lost, hence this application.
reason and he undertakes to appear as and when he
is directed by this Hon’ble court.
Prayer:

to cancel the BW issued against the accused
justice.
Delhi:
through
(N.K.RAI) ADV.
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOKESH KUMAR A.C.M.M. KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S MANU ETC.
FIR NO. 278/2005
U/S
P.S.
N.D.O.H. 14.10.2009
ACCUSED KAMAL AND ALSO FOR RESTORATION OF PREVIOUS
SURETY BOND
Hon’ble Sir,

____________.
2 That the ACCUSED person could not appear
before this Hon’ble court today in time
because he was held up in heavy traffic
jam and when he approached to court his
name had been called and due to non-
appearance NBW had been issued against
him, hence this application.
3 That absence of the accused person was
above said reason and he undertakes to
appear before this Hon’ble court as and
when they are directed by this Hon’ble
court.
Prayer:
in this case and also restore the previous
surety bond, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Through
(SANJEEV KUMAR) ADV.
IN THE COURT OF SH. S.K.ARORA MM KKD COURTS, DELHI

INRE:
STATE V/S NADEEM
FIR NO. 84/2002
U/S 392/34 IPC
P.S. PANDAV NAGAR
D.O.H. 26.10.2009

ACCUSED NADEEM S/O SH. JAMIL AHMAD
Hon’ble Sir,

before this Hon’ble court and date of
hearing was fixed for 26.10.2009.
2 That the accused could not appear before
this Hon’ble court today because he was
held up in heavy traffic jam and when he
approached to court his name had been
called and due to non-appearance NBW had
been issued against.
3 That the absence of the accused/applicant
due to above said reason.
4 That the accused/applicant undertakes to
appear before this Hon’ble court on each
and every date of hearing in future.
Prayer:
to cancel the NBW issued against the
accused/applicant in this case, in the
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S DEEPAK PAHWA

S/O ASHOK PAHWA
R/O 260, CHUKUWALE,
ONKAR ROAD, DEHRADUN
FIR NO. 141/2009
U/S 498A/406/34 IPC
P.S. GANDHI NAGA
APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF BAIL U/S 439 CR.P.C. ON

BEHALF OF ABOVE NAMED APPLCIANT/ACCUSED
SIR,
1 That in the above noted case the
applicant/accused has been enlarged on interim
bail/conditional bail
2 That now a settlement has been arrived between
the complainant and applicant/accused before
Hon’ble Court of Sh. Dilbagh Singh ASJ, KKD,
Delhi as per order dt. 12.11.2009.
3 That as per order of Hon’ble Court of Sh.
Dilbagh Singh, ASJ, KKD Court, Rs. 3,25,000/-
will be paid to the complainant by the
applicant/accused as full and final
compensation for present past and future
maintenance permanent alimony and both the
parties will file mutual consent divorce
petition before concerned court and the
complainant will cooperate in quashing the
above noted FIR before Hon’ble High Court.
4 That there are no grievances left between the
complainant and applicant/accused.

5 That in this connection a compromise deed has
been executed between the complainant and
applicant/accused.
6 That the applicant/accused is the permanent
resident of above address, therefore, there is
no chances of his absconding or tampering with
the prosecution evidence.
7 That the applicant/accused is ready to abide by
all the terms and conditions imposed by this
Hon’ble court.
8 That applicant/accused is ready furnish the
reliable surety to the entire satisfaction of
Prayer:
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is
therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
court may kindly be pleased to grant bail to the
applicant/accused in this case, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Through
(G.L.BHARDWAJ)
Adv.
IN THE COURT OF MS ANURADHA SHUKLA JUDGE JUVENILE

JUSTICE BOARD, KINGSWAY CAMP, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S SUNIL

FIR NO. 608/2005
U/S 376 IPC
P.S.NAND NAGRI
D.O.D. 15.01.2010
APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATIION OF ENDORSEMENT MADE ON

FDR OF SURETY NAMED _______________________________AND
ALSO FOR RETURN THE SAME
It is most respectfully submitted as under;
1 That the applicant stood surety for accused SUNIL

in this case which has been decided on 15.01.2010
by Hon’ble Court.
2 That endorsement had been made on FDR

_____________ and as case has been decided
therefore there is no need of surety in this case
and now the applicant want to get his endorsement
made on FDR cancelled and released by this
Hon’ble court in his favour.
Prayer:
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that

this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased cancel
the endorsement made on FDR and same be released
in favour of surety and the applicant/surety, be
discharged from his liabilities in this case, in
Delhi:
Dated: 04.03.2010 Applicant/surety
THROUGH
COUNSEL
sIN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH A.S.J. KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S RAN VIJAY ETC.

FIR NO. 564/2006
U/S 376/328/506/120B/34 IPC
P.S. BHAJANPURA
D.O.D. 04.01.2010
APPLICATION FOR RETURN FDR OF SURETY NAMED SHRIKANT

SINGH
That the applicant stood surety for accused RANVIJAY

by Hon’ble Court.
That original FDR of the surety issued by UCO Bank,

receipt No. 346331 of Rs. 10,000/- had been
detained in this case by this Hon’ble court and as
case has been decided therefore there is no need
of surety in this case and now the applicant want
to get his FDR released by this Hon’ble court.
Prayer:

this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to
release the original FDR of surety, in the
Delhi:
THROUGH
VIJAY RANA (ADV.)
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KHANGWAL MM KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
ESI V/S C.P. INDUSTRIES
CASE NO. 85/ESI/2008
D.O.D.10.09.2009
APPLICATION FOR RELESE THE ELECTION I.CARD OF

APPLCIANT/SURETY BHIM SINGH
That the applicant stood surety for accused B.S.

WALIA in this case which has been decided on
10.09.2009 by Hon’ble Court as fine of Rs. 12000/-
has been deposited by the accused B.S. Walia.
That original election I.Card of the surety had been

detained in this case and as case has been decided
and now the applicant want that his Election
I.Card be released in his favour.
Prayer:

this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased release
the E.I.Card of surety in his favour and the
applicant/surety, be discharged from his
liabilities in this case, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
(BHIM SINGH)
IN THE COURT OF SH. S.K. MALHOTRA MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S CHANDER PAL SINGH
FIR NO. 212/2002

U/S 279/304A IPC
P.S.GOKAL PURI
D.O.D.30.08.2007
GOSWARA NO.
APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATIION OF ENDORSEMENT MADE

ON DOCUMENT OF PROEPRTY OF SURETY NAMED QAMRUZAMA
That the applicant stood surety for accused CHANDE

RPAL SINGH in this case which has been decided on
30.08.2007 by this Hon’ble Court.
That endorsement had been made on DOCUMENT OF

PROEPRTY OF THE SURETY mentioned above and as case
has been decided therefore there is no need of
surety in this case and now the applicant want to
get his endorsement made on DOCUMENT OF PROEPRTY
OF THE SURETY by this Hon’ble court.
Prayer:

the endorsement made on DOCUMENT OF PROEPRTY OF
THE SURETY and the applicant/surety, be discharged
from his liabilities in this case, in the interest
of justice.
Delhi:
THROUGH
YASIR ARAFAT (ADV.)
INRE:
STATE V/S ROSHAN ALI @ DANISH
FIR NO. 48/2009
U/S 420/382/383/120-B IPC
P.S.JAGAT PURI
D.O.H. 30.06.2010

ON DOCUMENTS OF PROEPRTY OF SURETY AJIMA W/O SH.
NASIR ALI R/O SHOKAT COLONY, MEERUT U.P.

Hon’ble court and fixed for 30.06.2010
2 That the applicant stood surety for accused ROSHAN

ALI @ DANI, but she is needy for the said
documents of her property for urgent work,
therefore the applicant want to get her
endorsement made on document of property of
surety by this Hon’ble court.
Prayer:

the endorsement made on document of property of
surety and the applicant/surety, be discharged
from her liabilities in this case, in the interest
of justice.
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH A.S.J. KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S MANGAT RAM ETC.
FIR NO. 525/2007

U/S 304/34 IPC
P.S.NAND NAGRI
D.O.D. 06.01.2010
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE THE FDR ISSUED BY S.B.I.

BRANCH NAND NAGRI, OF RS. 15,000/- (THREE) OF
SURETY NAMED SATYA PRAKASH S/O SH. PITAMBER SINGH
R/O C-1/301, NAND NAGRI, DELHI
That the applicant stood surety for accused KISHAN

by this Hon’ble Court.
That the above noted FDR had been detained in the

above noted case and as case has been decided
and now the applicant want to get the said FDR
released in his favour by this Hon’ble court.
Prayer:

release the above said FDR to the surety and the
justice.
Delhi:
THROUGH
COUNSEL

DELHI
INRE:
FIR NO. 525/2007

U/S 304/34 IPC
P.S.NAND NAGRI
D.O.D. 06.01.2010

SURETY NAMED KAILASH CHAND S/O SH. BANSI LAL R/O
C-1/273, NAND NAGRI, DELHI
That the applicant stood surety for accused ARJUN in

this case which has been decided on 06.01.2010 by
this Hon’ble Court.

Prayer:
justice.
Delhi:
THROUGH
COUNSEL

DELHI
INRE:
FIR NO. 525/2007

U/S 304/34 IPC
P.S.NAND NAGRI
D.O.D. 06.01.2010

SURETY NAMED CHARAN SINGH S/O SH. KISHAN R/O C-
2/241 , NAND NAGRI, DELHI.
That the applicant stood surety for accused SUBHASH

by this Hon’ble Court.

Prayer:
justice.
Delhi:
THROUGH
COUNSEL

DELHI
INRE:
FIR NO. 525/2007

U/S 304/34 IPC
P.S.NAND NAGRI
D.O.D. 06.01.2010

ON DOCUMENTS OF PROEPRTY OF SURETY SH. PHOOL
SINGH S/O SH. DIWAN SINGH R/O ___________________
That the applicant stood surety for accused in this

case which has been decided on 06.01.20109 by
this Hon’ble Court.
3 That the applicant stood surety for accused

SUBHASH ON 01.09.2007, who has been acquitted in
this case while an endorsement had been made on
documents of property of surety and as case has
been decided therefore there is no need of surety
in this case and now the applicant want to get
his endorsement made on document of property of
surety by this Hon’ble court.
Prayer:

the endorsement made on document of property of
surety and the applicant/surety, be discharged
from her liabilities in this case, in the interest
of justice.
Delhi:
THROUGH
(COUNSEL)
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTT. & SESSION JUDGE KKD
COURT DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S SONU
S/O NARESH PAL SINGH
R/O AMAR VIHAR
BEHTA HAZIPUR, LONI,
GHAZIABAD, U.P.
FIR NO. 241/2009
U/S 379/411/34 IPC
P.S. WELCOME
IN J.C. 18.11.2009
FIRST APPLCIATION U/S 439 CR.P.C. FOR GRANT OF BAIL ON

BEHALF OF THE ABOVE NAMED APPLICANT/ACCUSED PERSON
SIR,
1 That the applicant/accused has been falsely

implicated in the above noted case by the
police of P.S. WELCOME and sent to J.C. on
18.11.2009 since then he is in custody.
2 That the applicant/accused is totally innocent

person and he has nothing to do with the
offence as alleged upon him.
3 That nothing has been recovered from the

possession of accused, whatsoever has been
shown is planted by the police.
4 That co-accused has already been released on

bail by this Hon’ble court.
5 That all the allegation leveled against the

applicant/accused is false and frivolous which
are beyond the truth while a under a conspiracy
he has been implicated falsely in the said
false case.
6 That the applicant/accused is not a previous

convict and no case is pending against him in
any court of law in Delhi or elsewhere except
this case.

Hon’ble court, if he is enlarged on bail by
8 That the applicant/accused is the resident of

Delhi, therefore, there is no chance of his
absconding or tampering with P.E.
9 That Mr. Amarpal Singh is the perokar of the

accused who is friend of father of accused.
10 That no other bail application is pending

before any court of law in Delhi or elsewhere
India.
11 That the applicant/accused person is ready to

furnish the reliable surety to the entire
satisfaction of this Hon’ble court.
Prayer:
It is therefore most humbly prayed that
grant bail to the applicant/accused person,
Delhi:

(IN J.C.)
Through
(C.M.ARIF) ADV.
IN THE COURT OF SH. S.K. ARORA MM KKD COURT, DELHI
INRE:
SHIVAM
STATE V/S AKBAR MALIK
FIR NO. 272/2005
U/S 451/506/508/34 IPC
P.S. SEELAM PUR
N.D.O.H. 14.12.2009
APPLICATION FOR STAY/CANCEL/RECALL OF PROCEEDING U/S 82

CR.P.C. INITIATED AGAINST THE APPLICANT/ACCUSED AKBAR
MALI S/O SH. SALIMUDDIN

this Hon’ble court and has been fixed for
24.11.2009.
2 That the ACCUSED/APPLICANT could not appear

hearing because unfortunately he forgotten his
date of hearing while due to non-appearance
NBW had been issued against him and thereafter
proceeding U/s 82 Cr.P.C. has been initiated
against him.
3 That absence of the applicant/ accused was

before this Hon’ble court on every date of
hearing in future.
4 That if the proceeding U/s 82 Cr.P.C. is not

stayed/recalled/cancelled then the applicant/
accused shall suffer an irreparable loss and
injuries.
5 That the applicant/accused undertakes to be
more careful on his part in this case in
future.
6 That the applicant/accused as well as surety

are ready to abide by all the terms and
conditions imposed by this Hon’ble court.
Prayer:
In view of the above facts and
circumstances, it is therefore most
respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court
may kindly be pleased to cancel/recall/stay
the proceeding U/s 82 Cr.P.C. initiated
against the applicant/accused, in this case
forfeited, in the interest of justice.
Delhi
Dated: 01.12.2009 ACCUSED/APPLICANT
THROUGH
counsel
(A.A.KHAN)
IN THE COURT OF SH. _____________ MM TIS HAZARI COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S
FIR NO. 69/2010
U/S 279 IPC
P.S. CIVIL LINES
VEHICLE NO. HR-38-J-2106
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE THE ABOVE VEHCILE ON SUPERDARI
ON BEHALF OF A.R./ATTORNEY MANISH SHARMA S/O SH. T.R.
SHARMA R/O B-4/T-1, BLOCK-B, DILSHAD GARDEN, DELHI-
110095
SIR,
1 That the applicant A.R./ATTORNEY OF is

the owner of the registered owner of the
above noted vehicle which has been
recovered by the police and same is lying
in Malkhana of P.S. CIVIL LINES.
2 That being A.R./ATTORNEY OF OWNER, the

applicant wants to get the same released
on superdari in this case and also the
applicant ready to abide by all the terms
and conditions imposed by this Hon’ble
court and also undertakes to produce the
said vehicle before this Hon’ble court.
3 That the said vehicle is no more

required for further investigation.
Prayer:
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that

pass an order to release the said vehicle on
superdari by directing the concerned SHO/IO,
in favour of the applicant/owner, in the
Delhi:
Dated: 15.04.2010 APPLICANT/A.R.
THROUGH
COUNSEL
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KHANEGWAL MM KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S BIJENDER SINGH
FIR NO. 66/2010
U/S 283 IPC
P.S. JAFRABAD
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE THE ABOVE HUG SCALE (BIG TARAJU

& TWO RICKSHAW THELI) ON SUPERDARI ON BEHALF OF OWNER
SH. BIJENDER SINGH S/O SH. DULI SINGH R/O H.NO. 639,
RAJPUT MOHALLA, GHONDA, DELHI
SIR,
1 That the applicant is the owner of the

above noted articles which has been
recovered by the police and same is lying
in Malkhana of P.S. JAFRABAD.
2 That the applicant is the owner Of the

said ARTICLES AND wants to get the same
released on superdari in this case and
also the applicant ready to abide by all
the terms and conditions imposed by this
Hon’ble court and also undertakes to
produce the said ARTICLES before this
Hon’ble court.
3 That the said ARTICLES is no more

Prayer:

pass an order to release the said ARTICLES on
Delhi:
Dated: 03.04.2010 APPLICANT/OWNER
THROUGH
COUNSEL
IN THE COURT OF MS SHIVALI SHARMA MM KKD COURTS, DELHI

INRE:
STATE V/S VIKAS YADAV
FIR NO. 108/2010
U/S 279/337/304A IPC
P.S. NEW USMANPUR
VEHICLE NO. HR-45-6170

ON BEHALF OF OWNER SH. TEJVIR SINGH S/O SH. RATI RAM
SINGH R/O 124, GOPAL PUR VILLAGE, DELHI
SIR,
1 That the applicant is the OWNER OF OF THE

ABOVE VEHICLE which has been impounded in
this case and same is lying in Malkhana of
P.S. NEW USMAN PUR.
2 That the applicant is the OWNER OF THE
owner Of the said vehicle AND wants to get
the same released on superdari in this
case and also the applicant ready to abide
by all the terms and conditions imposed by
this Hon’ble court and also undertakes to
produce the said vehicle before this
Hon’ble court.
3 That the said vehicle is no more required
for further investigation.
Prayer:

in favour of the applicant/ owner, in the
Delhi:
THROUGH
COUNSEL
SANJEEV KUMAR
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI MM KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S K.C.VERMA
FIR NO. 73/2010
U/S 279/337 IPC
P.S. KHAJOORI KHAS
VEHICLE NO. DL-8CJ-8206
(SANTRO CAR)
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE THE ABOVE VEHCILE AND ITS

REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ON SUPERDARI ON BEHALF OF SH.
K.C. VERMA S/O LATE SH. S.R. VERMA R/O B-2/100, SECTOR-
16, ROHINI, DELHI-110085
SIR,

above noted vehicle which has been
impounded in the above noted case and same
is lying in Malkhana of P.S. KHAJOORI
KHAS.
5 That the applicant owner Of the said

vehicle wants to get the same released on
superdari in this case and also the

Prayer:

pass an order to release the said vehicle and
its original R.C. on superdari by directing
the concerned SHO/IO, in favour of the
applicant/owner, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
THROUGH
COUNSEL
(RAMAN CHATWAL)
INRE:
HARI OM SINGH
S/O SH. BANGALI RAM
R/O H.NO. 52,
VILLAGE NANGLA BHIKKI
DISTT. AGRA, U.P.
V/S THE STATE

U/S 327/379/34 IPC
FIR NO. 20/2010
P.S. HARSH VIHAR
VEHCILE NO. UP-80AR-9747

ON BEHALF OF OWNER HARI OM SINGH
SIR,
That the applicant is the OWNER of the

above vehicle which have been impounded
in the said case by the police in this
case and same is lying in Malkhana of
P.S.HARSH VIHAR.
That the applicant being owner wants to

get the same released on superdari in
this case and also the applicant ready
to abide by all the terms and conditions
imposed by this Hon’ble court and also
undertakes to produce the said vehicle
That the said vehicle is no more required
Prayer:

in favour of the applicant/superdar, in the
Delhi:
through
(RAM KUMAR)
Advocate
INRE:
STATE V/S VISHWANATH PRATAP SINGH

FIR NO. 217/2009
U/s 279 IPC
P.S.MAYUR VIHAR
D.O.H.
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE THE R.C. OF THE

VEHICLE BEARING NO. __________ ON SUPERDARI
ON BEHALF OF OWNER SMT. SWATI W/O SH. RAM
PRASAD SHUKLA R/O C-58/5, YARROW APARTMENT,
FLAT NO. A-1-3, SECTOR-62, NOIDA, U.P.
SIR,
1 That the applicant is the OWNER of the
above noted vehicle which R.C. have been
impounded in the said case.
2 That the applicant being owner wants to
get the RC of the said vehicle released on
same before this Hon’ble court.
3 That the said R.C.is no more required for
further investigation.
Prayer:
pass an order to release the said R.C. on
Delhi:
THROUGH
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF ___________________________ MM TIS

HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S MANOJ SHARMA

U/S 279/337 IPC
FIR NO. 278/2009
P.S. KASHMERE GATE
VEHCILE NO. ____________
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE THE ABOVE VEHCILE AND RELATED
ARTICLES TO THE DECEASED LATE VIJENDER KUMAR MISHRA ON
SUPERDARI ON BEHALF OF RIGHTFUL OWNER SH. SHIVA KANT
MISHRA S/O LATE SH. RAM GULAM MISHRAS R/O J-281/37B,
GALI NO.5, KARTAR NAGAR, 3-1/2,PUSTA, DELHI-110053
SIR,
That the applicant is the RIGHT OWNER of the

above vehicle which have been impounded in
the said case by the police in this case
and same is lying in Malkhana of P.S.
KASHMERE GATE. It is pertinent to mention
here that the said vehicle has been
registered in the name of brother of
applicant now deceased late Sh. Vijender
Mishra.
That the applicant being RIGHTFUL owner as
well as brother of deceased wants to get
the same released on superdari in this
case and also the applicant ready to
abide by all the terms and conditions
That the said vehicle is no more required for
Prayer:

superdari and related articles of deceased by
directing the concerned SHO/IO, in favour of
the applicant/owner, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
through
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K. GAUTAM MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S MOBIN

U/S 429 IPC
& 78/99 DP ACT
FIR NO. 42/10
P.S. MADHU VIHAR
VEHCILE NO. RJ-14-GB2224
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE THE 25 BUFFALO(alive) ON
SUPERDARI ON BEHALF OF LAWFUL OWNER NAMED MOBIN S/O
SH. ISHAW ISHAQ R/O VILLAGE GHATO WASI, DISTT. NOOH
MEWAT HARYANA,
SIR,
That the applicant is the lawful owner of 25

buffalo (alive) on superdari which have
been impounded in the said case by the
police in this case and same are lying in
Malkhana of P.S. MADHU VIHAR.
That the applicant being owner of said 25

buffalo wants to get the same released on
same before this Hon’ble court.
Prayer:

pass an order to release the said buffalo on
Delhi:
through
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURAN CHAND M.M. KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S RAJKUMAR

FIR NO. 93/2008
U/S 279/327 IPC
P.S. SHAKARPUR
N.D.O.H. 12.05.2010
D/L NO. P-07112007426574
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE THE DRIVING LICENCE ON

SUPERDARI ON BEHALF OF OWNER/LICENSE HOLDER RAJKUMAR
S/O SH. KUNWAR PAL SINGH
SIR,

2 That the applicant is the HOLDER OF DRIVING
LICENCE which has been detained /impounded in
the above noted case.
3 That the said licence is light motor vehicle
class but the same is to be converted into
HMV, hence the wants to get the said DRIVING
LICENCE released on superdari and produce the
same as and when required by this Hon’ble
court.
Prayer:

pass an order to release the driving licence
to the holder, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 20.03.2010 APPLICANT/LICENCE

HOLDER/owner
THROUGH
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF SH. R.L. MEENA M.M. KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S OM SHIV ETC.

FIR NO. 131/2009
U/S 323/341/336/34 IPC
P.S. GEETA COLONY
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE THE REVOLVER No. FG-24218 AND
ITS LICENCE NO. 60912008 ON SUPERDARI ON BEHALF OF THE
APPLICANT/ACCUSED OM SHIV S/O SH. RAJ PAL SINGH
SIR,
1 That the applicant is the LAWFUL OWNER of the

above said revolver and also holder of above
said revolver licence which has been detained
in this case and same are lying in Malkhana
of P.S. Geeta Colony.
2 That the applicant being owner above said

revolver and its license wants to get the
same released on superdari in this case and
ready to abide by all the terms and
conditions imposed by this Hon’ble court and
also undertakes to produce the same before
3 That the said revolver and its license are no

more required for further investigation.
Prayer:

pass an order to release the said revolver
and its license on superdari by directing the
concerned SHO/IO, in favour of the
applicant/owner, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
THROUGH
Counsel
(SURENDER SINGH)
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KHANEGWAL M.M. KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S LAXMAN SINGH
FIR NO. 27/2010
P.S.SEELAMPUR
U/S 279/337 IPC
VEHICLE NO. DL-1RK-6107

ON BEHALF OF OWNER/ATTORNEY LAKHMI CHAND S/O SH. RAM
SWAROOP R/O B-68, GALI NO.1, PREM VIHAR, DELHI
SIR,
That the applicant is the LAWFUL OWNER/ATTORNEY

of the above vehicle which have been
impounded in the said case by the police in
this case and same is lying in Malkhana of
P.S. SEELAMPUR.
That the applicant being owner/ATTORNEY wants
to get the same released on superdari in this
case and ready to abide by all the terms and
also undertakes to produce the said vehicle
That the said vehicle is no more required for
Prayer:

Delhi:
THROUGH
COUNSEL
IN THE COURT OF SH. LALIT KUMAR M.M. KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S NOT KNOWN

FIR NO.227/2009
P.S.HARSH VIHAR
U/S 395/34 IPC
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE SOME ALUMINIUM SILLI(out of

total 172) ON SUPERDARI ON BEHALF OF OWNER SH. N.C.
GUPTA S/O LATE SH.RAGHUBAR DAYAL R/O 11/148, SECTOR-3,
RAJENDER NAGAR, SAHIBABAD, GHAZIABAD, U.P.
SIR,

above Aluminum Silly, which were looted
on 23.11.2009 from L-16, HANUMAN GALI,
MANDOLI, INDUSTRIAL AREA, DELHI-110093
and now same have been recovered by the
police and same are lying in Malkhana of
P.S. HARSH VIHAR, DELHI, while the
complaint of said theft had been got
lodged by Rajender Awasthi, who is the
employee of N.C. Gupta i.e.
applicant/owner.
this case and ready to abide by all the
terms and conditions imposed by this
produce the said Aluminum Silly before
That the said Aluminum Silly is no more
Prayer:
pass an order to release the said Aluminum
Silly on superdari by directing the concerned
SHO/IO, in favour of the applicant/owner, in
Delhi:
THROUGH
(MOMIN KHAN) ADV.
IN THE COURT OF SH.__________________ M.M. KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S SHASHI CHAUDHARY

FIR NO. 209/2009
P.S.SHAKARPUR
U/S 420 IPC
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE THE ARTICLES ON SUPERDARI ON

BEHALF OF OWNER/ACCUSED SHASHI CHAUDHARY W/O SH. SHARAN
BIR SINGH R/O F-72, WEST VINOD NAGAR, DELHI.
SIR,
That the applicant/accused is the

owner of under mention articles
which has been detained by the
police and now the same is lying in
Malkhana of P.S. SHAKARPUR.
Details as under:
Two golden rings

One artificial ring
One Mangal Sutra, gold
One ear ring, golden
One nosepin
Rs. 170/-
Three mobile set
One Beg
One purse
That the applicant being owner wants

to get the same released on
superdari in this case and ready to
abide by all the terms and
conditions imposed by this Hon’ble
court and also undertakes to
produce the said vehicle before
That the said vehicle is no more

Prayer:

Delhi:
THROUGH
COUNSEL
(PANKAJ RAGHAV)
IN THE COURT OF SH. LALIT KUMAR M.M. KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S ISHWAR PRASAD SHARMA

FIR NO.33/2010
P.S.SEEMA PURI
U/S 279/337 IPC
VEHICLE NO.RJ-14-IP-9966
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE THE ABOVE VEHCILE ON

SUPERDARI ON BEHALF OF ATTORNEY RAJASTHAN
ROADWAY, JAIPUR, NAMED RATAN LAL S/O SH.
MANOHAR LAL, ATI, OFFICE OF RAJATHAN ROADWAYS
JAIPUR, ROOM NO. 332, KASHMERE GATE, DELHI-
110054
SIR,
That the applicant is the ATTORNEY OF

RAJASTHAN ROADWAYS, JAIPUR, who is
the owner of said vehicle which
have been impounded in the said
case by the police in this case and
same is lying in Malkhana of P.S.
SEEMA PURI.
That the applicant being ATTORNEY
wants to get the same released on
superdari in this case and ready to
abide by all the terms and
conditions imposed by this Hon’ble
court and also undertakes to
produce the said vehicle before
Prayer:

Delhi:
THROUGH
(COUNSEL)
K.K. SINGH
INRE:
STATE V/S IRFAN S/O HANIF

FIR NO. 438/2009
U/S 379 IPC
P.S.ANAND VIHAR
VEHICLE NO.DL-4SBN-2298
(BAJAJ PULSER-BLACK)

ON BEHALF OF OWNER NAMED SACHIN TRIVEDI S/O SH. NARESH
CHAND TRIVEDI R/O 570/37, ONKAR NAGAR, TRI NAGAR,
DELHI-110035
SIR,
That the applicant is the registered OWNER of
the above vehicle which have been
recovered by the Mathura Police and same
is lying in Malkhana of P.S. ANAND VIHAR.
That the applicant being OWNER OF THE SAID

VEHICLE wants to get the same released in
produce the said vehicle before this
Hon’ble court as and when required to do
so
Prayer:

pass an order to release the said vehicle by
directing the concerned SHO/IO, in favour of
the applicant, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
(SACHIN TRIVEDI)
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K.GAUTAM MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S VIPLAB HALDAR

FIR NO. 311/2009
U/S 279 IPC
P.S.MAYUR VIHAR
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE THE DRIVING LICENCE OF

DRIVER/ACCUSED VIPLAB HALDAR S/O SH. VASHUDEV HALDER
R/O O-20, SECTOR-37, NOIDA, G.B.NAGAR, U.P.
SIR,
That the applicant is the holder of driving

licence which has been impounded in this
case and he is to got issued commercial
licence by depositing the previous,
therefore he wants to get his driving
licnece released on superdari.
That the applicant/accused also undertakes to
produce/submit his driving liecence before
this Hon’ble court as and when required to
do so
Prayer:

pass an order to release the driving license
of accused in this case,in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
through
counsel
(POONAM RANI) ADV.
INRE:
STATE V/S
D.D. NO. 36B DT.
19,.12.2009
U/S 103 D.P.ACT
P.S. PREET VIHAR
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE THE RICKSHAW VIDE ITS

REGISTRATION NO. 185017 ON BEHALF OF NAFISA W/O SH.
RAFIQ R/O C-9, GALI NO.5, BRIJPURI, DELHI-110094
SIR,
That the applicant is the OWNER of the above

rickshaw which have been impounded in the
said case by the police in this case. and
same is lying in Malkhana of P.S. Preet
Vihar.
That the applicant being owner wants to get
the same released on superdari in this case
and ready to abide by all the terms and
also undertakes to produce the said rickshaw
required to do so.
That the said rickshaw is no more required for
Prayer:

pass an order to release the said rickshaw on
Delhi:
(NAFISA)
INRE:
STATE V/S NOT KNOWN

FIR
U/S
P.S.SHAKARPUR

ON BEHALF OF OWNER SACHIN UPPAL S/O SH. SUBHASH UPPAL
R/O H-60, BALI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110015
SIR,
That the applicant is the OWNER GENERATOR

which have been impounded in the said
case by the police in this case. and
same is lying in Malkhana of P.S.
SHAKARPUR.
produce the said GENERATOR before this
Hon’ble court as and when required to do
so
That the said GENMERATOR is no more
Prayer:

pass an order to release the said GENERATOR
on superdari by directing the concerned
SHO/IO, in favour of the applicant/owner, in
Delhi:
THROUGH
(N.K.BANSAL )ADV.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR GAUTAM M.M. KKD COURTS

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S NOT KNOWN

FIR NO. 513/2009
U/S 379 IPC
P.S. NEW
ASHOK NAGAR
VEHICLE NO. DL-3CAC-8385

ON BEHALF OF OWNER SH. BRIJESH BHARTI S/O SH. AVDHESH
PRASAD SHARMA R/O A-33, FLAT NO.5, BLOCK-A, MANDAWALI
UNCHEPAR, DELHI-110092
SIR,

case and same is lying in Malkhana of
P.S. NEW ASHOK NAGAR, DELHI.
That the applicant being owner, the

applicant wants to get the same released
on superdari in this case and ready to
required to do so

Prayer:
in favour of the applicant/ attorney of
owner, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
THROUGH
(MOMIN KHAN)
ADV.
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI M.M. KKD COURTS
DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S ANIL KUMAR

FIR NO. 174/2009
U/S 279/337
IPC45rf P.S.
KHAJOORI KHAS
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE THE ABOVE DRIVING LICENCE ON

SUPERDARI ON BEHALF OF OWNER ANIL KUMAR
SIR,
1 That the applicant is the owner of above

D/L which have been impounded in the
said case by the police in this case.
2 That the applicant being owner wants to
produce the said D/L before this Hon’ble
court as and when required to do so as
it is necessary to be produced before
concerned department to get badge.
3 That the said D/L is no more required
Prayer:

pass an order to release the said D/L on
Delhi:
THROUGH
(SEEMA DOGRA)
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K. GAUTAM M.M. KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S DINESH RAM

FIR NO. 189/2009
U/S 279 IPC
P.S. MAYUR
VIHAR
D/L NO. 15977/MT403
D.O.H. 19.04.2010
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE THE ABOVE DRIVING LICENCE ON

SUPERDARI ON BEHALF OF DRIVER/OWNER/LICENCE HOLDER SH.
DINESH RAM S/O SH. ANTOK RAM R/O PYARE LAL ROAD, BEHIND
KHALSA COLLEGE, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI AND FOR
PREPONEMENT OF CASE FOR ITS DISPOSAL
SIR,
1 That the applicant is the driving

licence mentioned above which has been
detained in this case.
2 That the applicant wants to get the same

conditions imposed by this Hon’ble court
and also undertakes to produce the said
licence before this Hon’ble court as and
when required to do so
3 That the applicant/accused also want
that said matter be fixed for early
hearing for its disposal as the
applicant has pleaded his guilty.
Prayer:

pass an order to release the said driving
licence of accused/driver on superdari to the
applicant, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 07.12.2009 APPLICANT/DRIVER
THROUGH
(ANKIT SRIVASTAVA)
ADV.
IN THE COURT OF MS POONAM A. BAMBA A.S.J. PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS, NEW DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S SHAKIL AHMAD

FIR NO. 132/2009
U/S 186/353/307 IPC
& 25/27 ARMS ACT
P.S. LODHI
COLONY
VEHICLE NO. DL-5S-AA-3763

ON BEHALF OF MOHD. ARIF S/O ABDUL ALI R/O C-98/34, GALI
NO.14, NOORANI MASJID, CHAUHAN BANGER, DELHI
SIR,

case and same is lying in Malkhana of P.S.
LODHI COLONY, DELHI.
2 That being the owner of the said vehicle,
the applicant wants to get the same
conditions imposed by this Hon’ble court
and also undertakes to produce the said
vehicle before this Hon’ble court as and
when required to do so
3 That the said vehicle is no more required
Prayer:

in favour of the applicant/owner in the
Delhi:
INRE:
STATE V/S SANTOSH

FIR NO. 599/2009
U/S 279/338
P.S. PREET
VIHAR
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE THE BELOW MENTIONED ARTICLES ON

SUPERDARI ON BEHALF OF OWNER MOHD. HASEEN S/O HAJI
MOHD. SHARIF R/O Z-II/258, WELCOME DELHI-110053
SIR,
4 That the applicant is the lawful owner

of the under mentioned articles which
have been impounded in the said case by
the police in this case and same is lying
in Malkhana of P.S. WELCOME, DELHI.
5 That the applicant is the OWNER of the

said vehicle and he wants to get the UNDER
MENTIONED ARTICLES released on superdari
in this case and ready to abide by all the
produce the ARTICLES before this Hon’ble
court as and when required to do so, LIST
AS UNDER:
Rs.8,420/-
PAN Card
Voter I.Card
Two Ear Rings of Gold
6 That the said articles are no more
Prayer:

pass an order to release the said articles on
in favour of the applicant/ OWNER in the
Delhi:

Through
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF MS SHIWALI SHARMA MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
SHIV KUMAR V/S RAJ SINGH

C.C.NO.
P.S. GOKAL PURI
U/S 442/464/468/
472/506/420/376 IPC
N.D.O.H.8.11.2010
APPLICATION FOR EARLY HEARING IN THE ABOVE NOTED

CASE ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT SHIV KUMAR
SIR,
1 That the above noted is pending before this

Hon’ble court and fixed for 08.11.2010 for
consideration.
2 That the applicant is the complainant in the

above noted case and a long date has been given
to the complainant, while the complainant is
aged about 76 years, and due to which he feels
more inconvenient as the accused person can
harm the complainant therefore the
applicant/complainant wants early hearing in
this case to get fast relief.
Prayer:

this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to allow
this application and case be fixed for early
hearing.
Delhi:
Dated: 19.01.2010 Applicant/complainant
Through
(S.K.SHUKLA) ADV.
IN THE COURT OF SH. S.K. ARORA MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
RAMESH V/S ARVIND SINGH

C.C.NO.
U/S 138 N.I.ACT
P.S. PANDAV NAGAR
N.D.O.H.1.4.2010

CASE ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT RAMESH
SIR,
That the above noted is pending

before this Hon’ble court and fixed
for 1.4.2010 for consideration.
That the applicant is the complainant
in the above noted case and a long
date has been given to the
complainant, while no notice has
been served to the accused person
till time, while due to non-
appearance of counsel for
complainant as long date was given
to complainant.
That summoning in this case is
necessary and if a short date is
not given to the complainant then
the complainant shall suffer a lot.
Prayer:

hearing.
Delhi:
Through
(OM PRAKASH SINGH) ADV.

IN THE COURT OF MS SHIWALI SHARMA MM KKD COURTS,
DELHI/SHO/IO CONCERNED
INRE:
STATE V/S NOT KNOWN
FIR NO. 25/2010
U/S 379 IPC
P.S. GOKAL PURI
VEHICLE NO. DL-7SAT-6650
SUPERDGINAMA
THIS SUPERDGINAMA IS EXECUTED AT DELHI on this 8TH

DAY OF APRIL 2010 BY SH. JOGINDER SINGH S/O RANJEET
SINGH R/O 35, GALI NO.3, E-1 BLOCK, NEHRU VIHAR, DELHI-
110094 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE EXECUTANT SUPERDAR)
FAVOUR OF THIS HON’BLE COURT.
WHEREAS this Hon’ble court was pleased to pass an

order to release THE SAID VEHICLE on superdari on
furnishing a superdginama like amount Rs.25,000/-. The
executant undertakes to produce THE SAID VEHICLE before
the concerned court as and when directed in future and
also undertake not to sell/destroy/mortgage or transfer
THE SAID VEHICLE till the final disposal of case, and
shall also inform to the concerned court of any
changing of his residence in near future, failing which
the Executant shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs.
25,000/- to this Hon’ble court/ state/ Govt.
EXECUTANT
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATISH KUMAR ARORA MM KKD COURTS,
DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S PAWAN JAISWAL

FIR NO. 239/2009
U/S 279/337 IPC
P.S. PANDAV NAGAR
VEHICLE NO. DL-1RL-6199
SUPERDGINAMA

DAY OF MARCH 2010 BY SH.PAWAN JAISWAL S/O SH.
CHANDESHWAR R/O 221, HADDUN MOHALLA, MADANPUR KHADAR,
SARITA VIHAR, DELHI (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE EXECUTANT
SUPERDAR) FAVOUR OF THIS HON’BLE COURT.
order to release THE PERMIT OF THE SAID VEHICLE on
superdari on furnishing a superdginama like amount
Rs.5,000/-. The executant undertakes to produce THE
PERMIT OF THE SAID VEHICLE before the concerned court
as and when directed in future and also undertake not
to sell/destroy/mortgage or transfer THE PERMIT OF THE
SAID VEHICLE till the final disposal of case, and shall
also inform to the concerned court of any changing of
his residence in near future, failing which the
Executant shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/-
to this Hon’ble court/ state/ Govt.
EXECUTANT
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K.GAUTAM MM KKD COURTS, DELHI/
SHO/IO P.S. NEW ASHOK NAGAR
INRE:
STATE V/S AJEET
FIR NO. 120/2010
U/S 279/337 IPC
VEHICLE NO. HR-47B-1345
SUPERDGINAMA

DAY OF MARCH 2010 BY SH. AJEET S/O SH. SYOTAJ R/O H.NO.
190, VILLAGE LUKHI TEHSIL KOSLI, DISTT. RIWARI, HARYANA
(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE EXECUTANT SUPERDAR) FAVOUR OF
THIS HON’BLE COURT.
order to release SAID VEHICLE on superdari on
furnishing a superdginama like amount Rs.___________/-.
The executant undertakes to produce THE SAID VEHICLE
before the concerned court as and when directed in
future and also undertake not to sell/destroy/mortgage
or transfer THE SAID VEHICLE till the final disposal of
case, and shall also inform to the concerned court of
any changing of his residence in near future, failing
which the Executant shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs.
___________/- to this Hon’ble court/ state/ Govt.
EXECUTANT

INRE:
STATE V/S CHARAN JEET
FIR 72/2010
U/S 279 IPC
P.S.NEW ASHOK NAGAR
VEHICLE NO. UP-14BT-3016
AFF IDAVIT
I, ASIF S/O SHADILAHI R/O 125, BA, MOUO VYPAREEREYAN-3, MURAD

NAGAR, TEHSIL MODI NAGAR, DISTT. GHAZIABAD, U.P. do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under:
That I am the resident of above address.
That I am owner of the above noted vehicle.
That I want to get the said vehicle released on superdari in this case and shall
be fully responsible if any person claim regarding ownership of the
said vehicle.
Deponent
Verification:
Verified at Delhi on this 26th day of February, 2010 that all the contents of above
affidavit are correct and true to the best of my knowledge and belief .
Deponent
INRE:
STATE V/S NOT KNOWN

U/S 379/411
IPC
FIR NO. 85/2010
P.S. MANDAWALI
SUPERDGINAMA

DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010 BY SH. MOHIT S/O SH. MULAKH RAJ
R/O 506, LINK APARTMENT, PLOT NO.18, PATPARGANJ, DELHI-
110092 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE EXECUTANT SUPERDAR)
WHEREAS this Hon’ble court was pleased to pass an order

to release THE MOBILE PHONE MAKE NOKIA-N70 on
SAID MOBILE PHONE MAKE NOKIA-N70 before the concerned
court as and when directed in future and also undertake
not to sell/destroy/mortgage or transfer THE SAID
MOBILE PHONE MAKE NOKIA-N70 till the final disposal of
EXECUTANT
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR-III M.M. KKD COURTS,
DELHI/SHO/IO OF P.S. VIVEK VIHAR
INRE:
STATE V/S YASHVIR
FIR NO.38/2010
U/S 379/356/411/34 IPC
P.S.VIVEK VIHAR
VEHICLE NO. RJ-14GB-2224
SUPERDGINAMA
DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010 BY SH. GOPAL PATEL S/O SH. MUNNA
PATEL R/O B-128, SUKHIJA NURSING HOME, VIVEK VIHAR,
DELHI-110095 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE EXECUTANT
CONTD..2/-
::2:
to release MOBILE PHONE MAKE SIGMA TEL-59TV (MADE IN
CHINA) on superdari on furnishing a superdginama like
amount Rs.2500/-. The executant undertakes to produce
THE SAID MOBILE PHONE before the concerned court as and
when directed in future and also undertake not to
sell/destroy/mortgage or transfer THE SAID MOBILE PHONE
till the final disposal of case, and shall also inform
to the concerned court of any changing of his residence
in near future, failing which the Executant shall be
liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2500/- to this Hon’ble
court/ state/ Govt.
EXECUTANT
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K. GAUTAM M.M. KKD COURTS,
DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S SURAJ BHAN
FIR NO. 292/2009
U/S 279 IPC
P.S. MAYUR VIHAR
D/L NO. 5-106991BPC/2006
SUPERDGINAMA
DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010 BY SH. SURAJ BHAN S/O SH.
JAGROSHAN R/O VILLAGE SARUR PUR KALA, P.S. & DISTT.
BAGHPAT, U.P., (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE
EXECUTANT/SUPERDAR) IN FAVOUR OF THIS HON’BLE COURT.

to release THE SAID DRIVING LICENCE on superdari on
furnishing a superdginama like amount Rs.5,000/-
(Rs.Five thousand only). The executant undertakes to
produce THE said driving licence before the concerned
court as and when directed in future and also undertake
not to sell/destroy or transfer THE said driving
licence till the final disposal of case, failing which
5,000/- (Rs. One lac only) to this Hon’ble court/
state/ Govt.
EXECUTANT
INRE:
STATE V/S VIPLAB HALDAR
FIR NO. 311/2009

U/S 279 IPC
P.S.GANDHI NAGAR
SUPERDGINAMA
THIS SUPERDGINAMA IS EXECUTED AT DELHI on this 8 TH DAY

OF FEBRUARY 2010 BY VIPLAB HALDAR S/O SH. VASUDEV
HALDAR R/O 0-20, SECTOR-27, NOIDA, DISTT. G.B. NAGAR,
U.P. (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE EXECUTANT SUPERDAR) FAVOUR
OF THIS HON’BLE COURT.
order to release DRIVING LICENCE on superdari on
furnishing a superdginama like amount Rs.5,000/-. The
executant undertakes to produce DRIVING LICENCE before
DRIVING LICENCE till the final disposal of case, and
EXECUTANT
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K. GAUTAM M.M. KKD
COURTS/SHO/IO CONCERNED
INRE:
STATE V/S RAJ KUMAR

FIR NO. 74/2010
U/S 279 IPC
P.S. MAYUR VIHAR
VEHICLE NO. DL-2CAH-5072
SUPERDGINAMA

DAY OF MARCH 2010 BY SH. BADAL SAHU S/O BHOOPENDEER
NATH SAHU R/O 381-B, SHARAMIK KUNJ, SECTOR-122,
PARTHLA, KHAMJARPUR, NOIDA, U.P. (HEREINAFTER CALLED
THE EXECUTANT SUPERDAR) FAVOUR OF THIS HON’BLE COURT.

order to release THE SAID VEHICLE on superdari on
furnishing a superdginama like amount Rs.1,50,000/-.
The executant undertakes to produce THE SAID VEHICLE
before the concerned court as and when directed in
future and also undertake not to sell/destroy/mortgage
or transfer THE SAID VEHICLE till the final disposal of
1,50,000/- to this Hon’ble court/ state/ Govt.
EXECUTANT
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K. GAUTAM M.M. KKD
COURTS/SHO/IO CONCERNED
INRE:
STATE V/S RAJ KUMAR

FIR NO. 74/2010
U/S 279 IPC
P.S. MAYUR VIHAR
SUPERDGINAMA

DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010 BY SH. MOBIN S/O SH. ISHAQ R/O
VILLAGE GHATO WASI, DISTT. NOOH MEWAT, HARYANA
(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE EXECUTANT/SUPERDAR) IN FAVOUR
OF THIS HON’BLE COURT.

to release 25 BUFFALO on superdari on furnishing a
superdginama like amount Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lacs
only). The executant undertakes to produce THE 25
BUFFALO before the concerned court as and when directed
in future and also undertake not to sell/destroy 25
BUFFALO till the final disposal of case, failing which
3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lacs only) to this Hon’ble court/
state/ Govt.
EXECUTANT
INRE:
STATE V/S AJEET KUMAR PANDEY

FIR NO.342/2010
U/S 406 IPC
P.S.GEETA COLONY
SUPERDGINAMA

OF FEBRUARY 2010 BY SH. SANJAY GUPTA S/O SH. OM PRAKASH
GUPTA R/O NEW LAHORE GALI NO.11, H.NO.13, SHASTRI
NAGAR, DELHI(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE EXECUTANT SUPERDAR)
order to release RECOVERED ARTICLES/HOUSE HOLD
ARTICLES(AS PER LIST) on superdari on furnishing a
superdginama like amount Rs.1,50,000/-. The executant
undertakes to produce RECOVERED ARTICLES/HOUSE HOLD
ARTICLES before the concerned court as and when
directed in future and also undertake not to
sell/destroy/mortgage or transfer RECOVERED
ARTICLES/HOUSE HOLD ARTICLES till the final disposal of
1,50,000/- to this Hon’ble court/ state/ Govt.
EXECUTANT
DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S JAVED KHAN ETC.

FIR NO.12/2010
U/S 392/412/34 IPC
P.S. JAFRABAD
SUPERDGINAMA
THIS SUPERDGINAMA IS EXECUTED AT DELHI on this 22 ND DAY
OF JANUARY 2010 BY ASLAM S/O SH. RIYAZUDDIN R/O 261,
MAJDOOR JANTA COLONY, WELCOME, DELHI-110053

to release MOBILE PHONE MAKE SONY ERRICSON, MODEL K-
220i, on superdari on furnishing a superdginama like
amount Rs.10,000/-. The executant undertakes to produce
SAID MOBILE PHONE before this Hon’ble court/ SHO/IO
concerned and also undertake not to
sell/destroy/mortgage or transfer THE mobile phone till
the final disposal of case, and shall also inform to
the concerned court of any changing of his residence in
near future, failing which the Executant shall be
liable to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to this Hon’ble
court/ state/ Govt.
EXECUTANT
IN THE COURT OF MS BHAWANI SHARMA MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S ARUN
CHALLAN NO.
U/S 66/192, 184 M.V.ACT
VEHICLE NO. DL-1PA-3570
SUPERDGINAMA
THIS SUPERDGINAMA IS EXECUTED AT DELHI on this 21 ST DAY

OF JANUARY 2010 By MR. ARUN S/O SH. SUKKAR PAL R/O
H.NO. 461, SUBZI MANDI, RING ROAD WALI GALI, AZADPUR,
DELHI-110033 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE EXECUTANT

to release THE SAID VEHICLE on superdari on
furnishing a superdginama like amount Rs.________. The

____________/- to this Hon’ble court/ state/ Govt.
EXECUTANT
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K.GAUTAM MM KKD COURTS, DELHI/ IO
P.S. MAYUR VIHAR, DISTT. EAST, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S DHARAM PAL

FIR NO. 25/2010
U/S 279/337 IPC
P.S.MAYUR VIHAR
VEHICLE NO. HR-20-R-0588
SUPERDGINAMA
OF JANUARY 2010 By MR. SURENDER KUMAR S/O SH. BHANWAR
SINGH R/O VPO, AGROHA, TEHSIL & DISTT. HISSAR, HARYANA
to release THE SAID VEHICLE on superdari on
furnishing a superdginama like amount Rs.________. The
____________/- to this Hon’ble court/ state/ Govt.
EXECUTANT
To,
The SHO/IO,
P.S. NAND NAGRI
DISTT. NORTH EAST
DELHI-110093
STATE V/S ANIS AHMAD

FIR NO.241/2009
U/S 279/338 IPC
P.S. NAND NAGRI
VEHICLE NO.DL-78C-H-3543
SUPERDGINAMA

DAY OF APRIL 2010 BY MOHD. HASIM S/O ABDUL WAHID 208,
GALI NO.4, MUSTAFABAD, RAJEEV NAGAR, DELHI-110094
SHO/IO P.S. NAND NAGRI.
WHEREAS the Hon’ble court of MS SHIWALI SHARMA MM

KKD COURTS, DELHI was pleased to pass an order to
release THE SAID VEHICLE on superdari on furnishing a
superdginama like amount Rs.75,000/-. The executant
undertakes to produce THE SAID VEHICLE before the
concerned court as and when directed in future and also
undertake not to sell/destroy/mortgage or transfer THE
SAID VEHICLE till the final disposal of case, and shall
also inform to the concerned court of any changing of
his residence in near future, failing which the
Executant shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/-
to this Hon’ble court/ state/ Govt/SHO/IO
EXECUTANT
IN THE COURT
OF SH. LALIT KUMAR M.M. KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S NOT KNOWN

FIR NO.227/2009
P.S.HARSH VIHAR
U/S 395/34 IPC
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE SOME ALUMINIUM SILLI(out of

total 172) ON SUPERDARI ON BEHALF OF OWNER SH. N.C.
GUPTA S/O LATE SH.RAGHUBAR DAYAL R/O 11/148, SECTOR-3,
RAJENDER NAGAR, SAHIBABAD, GHAZIABAD, U.P.
To,
The SHO/IO,
P.S.PANDAV NAGAR
DISTT. EAST,
DELHI-110092
STATE V/S DHARMENDER

FIR NO. 136/2010
U/S 279/337 IPC
P.S. PANDAV NAGAR
VEHICLE NO. UP-16T-1108
SUPERDGINAMA
DAY APRIL 2010 By ANIL KUMAR SHARMA S/O SH. VISHNU
DAYAL SHARMA R/O C-178, SECTOR-22, NOIDA, UP
(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE EXECUTANT SUPERDAR) IN FAVOUR
OF SHO/IO P.S. PANDAV NAGAR, Delhi.
WHEREAS the Hon’ble court SH. S.K.ARORA MM KKD
COURTS, DELHI was pleased to pass an order to release
the above said vehicle on superdari on furnishing a
superdginama like amount Rs. 2,50,000/-. The
executant undertakes to produce the said vehicle before
the said vehicle till the final disposal of case, and

the Executant shall be liable to pay a sum of
Rs.2,50,000/- to this Hon’ble court/ state/
Govt./SHO/IO
EXECUTANT
To,
The SHO/IO,
P.S. HARSH VIHAR
DISTT. NORTH EAST,
DELHI-110093
STATE V/S NOT KNOWN

FIR NO.227/2009
P.S.HARSH VIHAR
U/S 395/34 IPC
SUPERDGINAMA
THIS SUPERDGINAMA IS EXECUTED AT DELHI on this 2nd
DAY February 2010 By SH. N.C. GUPTA S/O LATE
SH.RAGHUBAR DAYAL R/O 11/148, SECTOR-3, RAJENDER
NAGAR, SAHIBABAD, GHAZIABAD, U.P. (HEREINAFTER
CALLED THE EXECUTANT SUPERDAR) IN FAVOUR OF SHO/IO
P.S. NEW ASHOK NAGAR, Delhi.
WHEREAS the Hon’ble court SH. LALIT KUMAR MM KKD
COURTS, DELHI was pleased to pass an order to
release 56 ALUMINIUM SILLI(out of total 172) on
Rs. 1,50,000/-. The executant undertakes to
produce the ALUMINIUM SILLI before the concerned
court as and when directed in future and also
undertake not to sell/destroy/mortgage or transfer
the ALUMINIUM SILLI till the final disposal of
case, and shall also inform to the concerned court
of any changing of his residence in near future,
failing which the Executant shall be liable to pay
a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to this Hon’ble court/
state/ Govt.
EXECUTANT
INRE:
STATE V/S BAL KISHAN

FIR NO. 333/2009
U/S 279 IPC
SUPERDGINAMA
THIS SUPERDGINAMA IS EXECUTED AT DELHI on this 11 H DAY

OF JANUARY 2010 By SH. BAL KISHAN S/O SH. ATTAR SINGH
R/O H.NO. C-43/28, A-GALI NO.11, GAMRI, DELHI-110053
to release THE DRIVING LICENCE of the superdar, on
DRIVING LICENCE before the concerned court as and when
directed in future and also undertake not to
sell/destroy/mortgage or transfer THE DRIVING LICENCE
till the final disposal of case, and shall also inform
to the concerned court of any changing of his residence
in near future, failing which the Executant shall be
liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to this Hon’ble
court/ state/ Govt.
EXECUTANT
To,
The SHO/IO,
P.S. SEEMAPURI
DISTT. NORTH-EAST,
DELHI-110095
STATE V/S ISHWAR PRASAD SHARMA
FIR NO. 33/2010
U/S 279/337 IPC
P.S. SEEMA PURI
VEHICLE NO. RJ-14-PA-9966
SUPERDGINAMA
DAY January 2010 By SH. RATAN LAL S/O SH. MANOHAR LAL
R/O ATI, OFFICE OF RAJASTHAN ROADWAY JAIPUR, ROOM NO.
332, KASHMERE GATE, DELHI-110032 (HEREINAFTER CALLED
THE EXECUTANT SUPERDAR) IN FAVOUR OF SHO/IO P.S. SEEMA
PURI, Delhi.
WHEREAS the Hon’ble court SH. LALIT KUMAR MM KKD
COURTS, DELHI was pleased to pass an order to release
the said vehicle on superdari on furnishing a
superdginama like amount Rs. 12,00,000/-. The
executant undertakes to produce the said vehicle before
the said vehicle till the final disposal of case, and
the Executant shall be liable to pay a sum of
Rs.12,00,000/- to this Hon’ble court/ state/ Govt.
EXECUTANT
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GUPTA, JSCC, KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
VINAY KUMAR & ANR. V/S BSES YPL

C.C.NO
D.O.H. 11.03.2010
APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER THE CASE TO LOK ADALAT

FOR 13.03.2010 TO GET FAST RELIEF ON BEHALF OF THE
PLAINTIFF
SIR,
It is most respectfully submitted:
2 That the applicant is the plaintiff in the
above noted case and has received an
information regarding the Lok Adalat of matters
related to BSES which is to be held on
13.03.2010 at KKD Court, Delhi.
Prayer:
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this
application and case be transferred to Lok Adalat
to get fast relief, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 11.03.2010 Applicant/Plaintiff
Through
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNITA GUPTA A.S.J. ROHINI COURT
DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S DURGESH

FIR NO. 206/2009
U/S 363/302/201/34 IPC
P.S. KHAJOORI KHAS
IN J.C. 06.08.2009
FIRST BAIL APPLCIATION U/S 439 CR.P.C. FOR GRANT OF
BAIL ON BEHALF OF THE ABOVE NAMED APPLICANT/ACCUSED
PERSON
SIR,
police of P.S. KHAJOORI KHAS and sent to J.C.
on 06.08.2009 since then he is in custody.
2 That the applicant/accused is totally
innocent person and he has nothing to do with
the offence as alleged upon him.

4 That the applicant is the student, aged about
20 years, having clean antecedents, while his
future is become destroy between the hard ant
criminal in judicial custody.
5 That the there a major contradiction between
the complaint given by the complainant
earlier to police and FIR which clearly
proves that the applicant/accused has be
become a scap got.
6 That as per Post mortem report, it was
reveled that the death of deceased occurred
three days earlier since the date of his post
mortem.
applicant/accused is false and frivolous
which are beyond the truth while a under a
conspiracy he has been implicated falsely in
the said false case.
8 That the applicant/accused is ready to abide
this Hon’ble court, if he is enlarged on bail
by this Hon’ble court.

10 That the applicant/accused is earning member
of his family and in his absence entire
family of accused has come under the verge of
starvation.
before any court of law in Delhi or else
where in India.
Prayer:
in this case till disposal of the case, in
Delhi:
Dated: Applicant/accused
(IN J.C.)
Through
(VIJAY KUMAR RANA) ADV.
IN THE COURT OF MS ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ PRINCIPLE
JUDGE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, MUKERJEE NAGAR, DELHI.
INRE
STATE V/S YATEESH @ NITISH
FIR NO. 206/2009
U/S 363/302/201/34 IPC
P.S. KHAJOORI KHAS
IN J.C. 06.08.2009
FIRST APPLICATION U/S 12 J.J. ACT FOR GRANT
OF BAIL ON BEHALF OF THE ABOVE NOTED
APPLICANT/ DELINQUENT/JUVENILE.
SIR,
1 That the Applicant/ Delinquent/Juvenile has
been falsely implicated in the above noted
case by the police of P.S. KHAJOORI KHAS and
sent to J.C. on 06.08.2009 since then he is
in custody.
2 That the Applicant/ Delinquent/Juvenile is
totally innocent person and he has nothing to
do with the offence as alleged upon him.
4 That the applicant is the student, he is
less than 18 years, having clean antecedents,
while his future is become destroy between
the hard ant criminal in judicial custody.

5 That the there a major contradiction between
the complaint given by the complainant
earlier to police and FIR which clearly
proves that the Applicant/
Delinquent/Juvenile has be become a scap got.
6 That as per Post mortem report, it was
reveled that the death of deceased occurred
three days earlier since the date of his post
mortem.
Applicant/ Delinquent/Juvenile is false and
frivolous which are beyond the truth while a
under a conspiracy he has been implicated
falsely in the said false case.
conditions imposed by this Hon’ble court, if
he is enlarged on bail by this Hon’ble court.
the resident of Delhi, therefore, there is no
chance of his absconding or tampering with
P.E.
before any court of law in Delhi or else
where in India.
Prayer:
grant bail to the Applicant/
Delinquent/Juvenile person, in this case till
disposal of the case, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Dated: Applicant/ Delinquent/Juvenile

(IN J.C.)
Through
(VIJAY KUMAR RANA) ADV.

IN THE COURT OF SH. R.L. MEENA MM KKD COURT, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S GULSHAN @ CHAWAL

FIR NO. 359/2006
U/S 325/34 IPC
P.S. GEETA COLONY
D.O.H. 12.03.2010
N.D.O.H.

CR.P.C. INITIATED AGAINST THE APPLICANT/ACCUSED GULSHAN
@ CHAWAL S/O SH. SHYAM LAL

12.03.2010.

hearing because due to sudden illness of his
mother he had to go to Hosiyarpur, Punjab to
look after his mother due to which he had to
stay there due to which he forgotten his date
of hearing and consequently due to non-
appearance NBW had been issued against him and
thereafter proceeding U/s 82 Cr.P.C. has been
initiated against him, which information had
been received by the accused when he returned
to Delhi, today he again could not appear
before this Hon’ble court in time because he
held up in heavy traffic Jam and when he
approached to court his name had been called
and therefore he was marked absent, hence this
application.

hearing in future.

injuries.

future.

Hon’ble court.
Prayer:
Delhi
THROUGH
counsel
(SHASHIKANT TAVATIYA)
IN THE COURT OF SH. _______________________ MM KKD

COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S NOT KNOWN
FIR NO. 98/2010
U/S 279/337 IPC
P.S. MANDAWALI
VEHCILE NO. DL-1LB-3699
(TATA-407)

ON BEHALF OF OWNER SH.BHAGWATI KUMAR AGGARWAL S/O SH.
JAWAHAR MAL AGGARWAL R/O 4-3/1, SECTOR-4, ROHINI, DELHI
SIR,

said vehicle which have been impounded in
the said case by the police in this case
and same is lying in Malkhana of P.S.
MANDAWALI.

above said vehicle and being owner he

Prayer:

Delhi:
THROUGH
COUNSEL
IN THE COURT OF STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
INRE:
SH. PANKAJ GUPTA
S/O SH. SANT GUPTA
R/O 11367/I-D (IDGAH)
SINGARA CHOWK, DELHI
APPELLANT
V E R S U S
A.C.P.
TRAFFIC ROAD SAFETY CELL, DELHI
RESPONDENT
VEHICLE NO. DL-1L-E-9194

P.S. ASHOK VIHAR
APPLICATION FOR REDUCTION OF IMPOUNDED TRUCK
ABOVE NUMBER
SIR
1 That the above noted authority has disposed off

the appeal as dismissed in default and the
truck has been impounded by Keshav Puram
Traffic Authority on 27.02.2010.
2 That due to the impounding of truck the driver
and the conductor have become unemployed and
they are sitting idle.
3 That the appellant wants to reduce the time
upto 7 or 10 days. So that the staff of the
truck can be taken on record.
Prayer:
Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to reduce the
time of the impounded vehicle, noted above, in the
Delhi:
Dated: 12.03.2010 Applicant
Through
(ASHA SINGH & D.P.SINGH)
INRE:
STATE V/S OMPRAKASH @ OMI
FIR NO. 101/2010
U/S ___________ IPC
P.S. MAYUR VIHAR
IN J.C. 27.03.2010
APPLCIATION U/S 437 CR.P.C. FOR GRANT OF BAIL ON BEHALF
OF THE ABOVE NAMED APPLICANT/ACCUSED PERSON
SIR,

police of P.S. MAYUR VIHAR and sent to J.C. on



false case.



India.

Prayer:

Delhi:

(IN J.C.)
Through
(HARISH KUMAR) ADV.

INRE:
STATE V/S NARENDRA TIWARI
FIR NO. 153/2007
U/S 379 IPC
P.S. KHAJOORI KHAS
J.C. SINCE 26.02.2010

OF THE ABOVE NAMED APPLICANT/ACCUSED NARENDER TIWARI
S/O SH. RAMA SHANKER TIWARI R/O E-2/369, SONIYA VIHAR,
DELHI-110094
SIR,
1 That the applicant/accused has been residing at

the above address permanently since long he is
aged about 24 years, belongs to poor but
respectable family having clean antecedents.
2 That on such date, the applicant/accused was

driving his Uncle’s Bike, the registration
number of the said vehicle is DL-5SS-8398,
Engine No. DUMNBL D26202, CHASIS NO.
DUFBLD45626.
3 That the applicant has no concerned about the

said bike which is shown in FIR dated
26.02.2010 by police of P.S. Harsh Vihar.
4 That both the bike is not same and as the

applicant/accused was driving another bike.

police of P.S. M.S. PARK.


false case.


India.

Prayer:
Delhi:

Through
(BHATT & ASSOCIATES)
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE MM EVENING COURT KKD COURTS,

DEHLI
STATE V/S VIKAS

FIR NO.
U/S 103 D.P.ACT
P.S. SEEMA PURI
D.O.H. 06.04.2010
APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF PRODUCTION WARRANT OF

APPLCIANT/ACCUSED PERSONS ABOVE NAMED
SIR,

2 That the applicant/accused person is unable
to appear before this Hon’ble court as he is
in judicial custody at Dasna Jail, Ghaziabad,
in case FIR No. 217/2010, U/s 356/392, P.S.
Sahibabad, UP since 10.03.2010, therefore the
production warrant of ACCUSED is essential to
be issued for his appearance.
PRAYER:
It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that

this application and issue production warrant of
ACCUSED PERSON, in this case in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 06.04.2010 APPLCIANT/ACCUSED
THROUGH
Counsel
(PARMANAND JAINT) ADV.
To,
SHO/IO
P.S. Maya Puri,
Inre: FIR No. 18/2010, U/s 279/338 IPC
A F F I D A V I T
I, DENESH CHANDER S/O SH. PARMANAND R/O 149, LAXMI

PARK, BLOCK-B, NANGLOI, DELHI-110041 AND PERMANNET R/O
VILLAGE PARANDA, P.O. PARANDA, P.S. KOTDWAR, DISTT.
PAURI GARHWAL, UTTRANCHAL, do hereby solemnly affirm
and declare as under:
1 That I am the complainant/injured/victim in the

above noted accident occurred on 02.03.2010, in
this connection an FIR was registered vide its
No. 18/2010 but inadvertently in the FIR my
incorrect name i.e. GANESH S/O SH. VISHNU DUTT
have been wrongly mentioned in place of my
correct name and address mentioned above i.e.
DENESH CHANDER S/O SH. PARMANAND.
2 That DENESH CHANDER S/O SH. PARMANAND and
GANESH S/O SH. VISHNU DUTT is one and same
person.
3 That I shall keep harmless and indemnify the

concerned SHO/IO or Hon’ble court if any person
claim the said accident or any information
furnished in this affidavit is found to be
false or incorrect.
4 That the concerned SHO/IO or Hon’ble court
shall be indemnified for all losses, charges,
expenses, litigation if any occur.
5 That if my name is not changed in the said FIR
then I shall suffer an irreparable loss and
injuries which can not be compensated in any
manner in future.
6 That it is my true statement.
Deponent
Verification:
Verified at Delhi on this 12th day of March
2010, that all the contents of above
affidavit are correct and true to the best of
my knowledge and belief and nothing has been
concealed therefrom.
Deponent
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH PANDIT A.C.M.M, KKD COURTS,
DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S DAMODAR
FIR NO. 299/
U/S 61/1/14 EX.ACT
P.S. ANAND VIHAR
D.O.H. 09.04.2010
APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER THE CASE TO LOK ADALAT

FOR 13.03.2010 TO GET FAST RELIEF ON BEHALF OF THE
ACCUSED
SIR,
It is most respectfully submitted:
2 That the applicant has been involved in this case
as an accused and he has received an information
regarding the Lok Adalat at KKD Courts, Delhi is
to be held on 13.03.2010 at KKD Court, Delhi.
Prayer:

application and case be transferred to Lok Adalat
to get fast relief, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 12.03.2010 Applicant/ACCUSED
Through
Counsel
Application u/s 3 of DELHI R.T.I. Act 2005
I.D. No.
For Office Use
To,
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

D-BLOCK, SCHOOL CHAND NAGAR,
KHYALA NEW DELHI-110018
SIR,
1 Name of applicant: JAWAHAR LAL

S/O SH. BACHAN LAL
R/O K-92, MOHAN GARDEN
NEAR PIPAL WALA CHOWK,
NEW DELHI-110059
2 Particular of information:
A. concerned department:
D-BLOCK, SCHOOL CHAND NAGAR,

KHYALA NEW DELHI-110018
B.Information required:
1 Tell me that Mrs. Sneh Lata W/o Sh. Jawahar lal

D/o Sh. Kamal Kishor Sharma, presently residing
with her family R/o WZ-283/89, Block, West,
Vishnu Garden, Near Village Khyala, New Delhi-
110018 is working in your school?, if working,
then please give information that on which
post she has been posted.
2 Tell me please about the salary status of your
employee Sneh Lata.
3 Period for which information asked for:
10th day of May 2010

I stated that the information sought does not
fall within the restrictions contained in the
Right to Information Act and the best of my
knowledge it pertains to your office.
A fee of Rs. 10/- has been paid by cash.
Delhi:
Dated: Signature
JAWAHAR LAL
S/O SH. BACHAN LAL
R/O K-92, MOHAN GARDEN
NEAR PIPAL WALA CHOWK,
NEW DELHI-110059
IN THE COURT OF SH. S.K. GUPTA A.D.J. DELHI
INRE:
SMT. MALUKI & OTHERS V/S SH. AJAY KUMAR
N.D.O.H.02.06.2010
APPLICATION U/S 151 OF CPC FOR EARLY HEARING ON
BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF
1 That the above noted suit was fixed for today
i.e. 15.03.2010 and the court notice was
issued to the plaintiffs after receiving back
the case from the Medication Officer which
took about 8 months, but could not be
compromised.
2 That the plaintiff came to the court at about
10.30 AM but the case was adjourned for
02.06.20010.
3 That the plaintiff arrived the Hon’ble court
when Item No.9 was being taken and the above
said case was adjourned on the very first
call on the request of the defendant who is
not filing the written statement inspite of
service about 8 months back which he should
have filed within 30 days or maximum within
90 days if he shows any special reason.
4 That the plaintiff No.1 is about 85 years old
and god knows for all long she will survive
and she wants to get the case decided early.
Prayer:
some earlier date may be fixed for hearing and the
defendant be directed to file his written
statement if he so desire.
Delhi:
Dated: 15.03.2010 Applicant/plaintiff
Through
(J.S. MALHOTRA) ADV.

IN THE COURT OF MS ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ PRINCIPLE
JUDGE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, MUKERJEE NAGAR, DELHI.
INRE
STATE V/S VIPIN

S/O SH. HARI BILAS
R/O VILLAGE KARANPURA
JAITPUR WAH, TEHSIL WAH
DISTT. AGRA, U.P.
PRESENTILY RESIDING AT
J-287/9, FIRST FLOOR, G.N.10
KARTAR NAGAR,3/1-2
PUSTA, DELHI-110053
FIR NO. 375/2009

U/S 303/34 IPC
P.S. NEW USMANPUR
IN J.C. SINCE 21.11.2009
N.D.O.H. 17.03.2010
APPLICATION FOR SURRENDER ON BEHALF OF

APPLICANT/ DELINQUENT/JUVENILE VIPIN
SIR,
1 That the above noted APPLICANT/

DELINQUENT/ JUVENILE has been falsely
implicated in this case by the
complainant with the collusion of police
of P.S.NEW USMAN PUR, Delhi and was
arrested on disclosed statement of co-
accused on 21.11.2009 and since then he is
in J.C.
2 That the applicant/juvenile was under
custody of Reformation Home since his
declaration of juvenile and there was no
complaint by the officials of Reformation
home.
3 That on the night 14.03.2010, a mob of 25
juveniles with one motive compelled the
applicant/juvenile and threatened him if
he will not accompanied them, they will
kill him and due to compelling
circumstances had to ran away from the
custody of Reformation Home and when he
left him from the cruel clutches of said
25 juvenile, he informed to his parents,
and now the parents of the
applicant/juvenile want to surrender the
applicant/juvenile in this case.
4 That the reason mentioned is neither
intention nor willful but the
applicant/juvenile himself is surrender
before this Hon’ble court voluntarily.
Prayer:
In view of the above facts and circumstances,

it is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased accept surrender
of applicant/juvenile through his father in this
case, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 15.03.2010 Applicant/Juvenile
Though
HAIR BILAS
FATHER OF APPLICANT/
JUVENILE
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTT. & SESSIONS JUDGE, KKD

COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S MEENA
W/O LATE PARMANAND SHARMA
FIR NO. 53/2009
U/S 448/380/34 IPC
P.S. JAFRABAD
APPLCIATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. FOR GRANT OF ANTICIPATORY
BAIL ON BEHALF OF THE ABOVE NAMED APPLICANT/ACCUSED
SIR,
police of P.S. JAFRABAD.

false case.
4 That the police of P.S. Jafrabad, has been
visiting to the house of applicant/accused
continuously on odd hours and she has
apprehension that police may arrest her in
future in the said false case.
5 That the applicant/accused is a widow lady but
she is a teach by his profession, having three
daughters, while last to last year her husband
had expired and since then she is only earning
member of her family.
6 That the FIR was lodged on 27.11.2009 and about
3 months has expired, which shows that
applicant/accused has been falsely implicated
on the instance of complainant who was the
tenant of applicant/accused.
7 That it is necessary to mention here that the
complainant had vacated the premises of
applicant/accused near about one month before
and had handed over the peaceful possession of
the said tenanted premises to the
applicant/accused, while the tenant had not

paid the monthly rent of the tenanted premises
(for few months which is upto 26,400/-)to the
applicant/accused, in this connection a notice
has already been given to tenant/complainant on
6.11.2009, after that the complainant picked up
quarrel with the applicant/accused, in this
regard the applicant/accused gave complaint
against the complainant in P.S. Bhajanpura,
Delhi on 2.11.2009 and thereafter so many
complaints have been given to police by the
applicant/accused against the complainant i.e.
on 17.11.2009 & 19.11.2009 to C.P., D.C.P. and
P.S. Jafrabad, and consequently the complainant
with intention to ill motive and design gave a
false and concocted complaint against the
applicant/accused, on instance of same, the
applicant/accused had been falsely implicated
in the above noted case.
8 That co-accused Vijay has already been released
on interim bail on 10.03.2010 by this Hon’ble
court.

furnish Sthe reliable surety to the entire
Prayer:
grant bail to the applicant/accused thereby
directing the concerned SHO/IO to release the
applicant/accused in this case in the event
of his arrest, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Through
(K.K.SHARMA) ADV.
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURAN CHAND MM (DISTT. EAST) KKD
COURT DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S RAJESH KUMAR
S/O SH.SHRI RAM
FIR NO. 61/2010
U/S 27/54/59 A.ACT
& 506 IPC
P.S. JAGATPURI
IN J.C. 22.02.2010

SIR,

this Hon’ble court and fixed for 15.04.2010 for
argument on charge.

police of P.S. JAGATPURI and sent to J.C. on

4 That challan has been filed by the prosecution

in this case and same is fixed for charged on
3.5.2010.
false case.



India.

Prayer:

Delhi:

(IN J.C.)
Through
(C.M.ARIF & R.K.TOMAR) ADV.

IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJKAPOOR A.S.J. KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S SONU & OTHERS

FIR NO. 24/2007
U/S 307/506/34 IPC
P.S. KHAJOORI KHAS
N.D.O.H. 16.03.2010
A F F I D A V I T
I, NAVEEN SINGH S/O SH. DHEER SINGH R/O GALI NO.2, C-

BLOCK, VILLAGE DAYAL PUR, KARAWAL NAGAR, DELHI-110094, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1 That I have no any enmity to Kamal.

2 That due to exam I am not in a position to appear
3 That on next date of hearing, I will present before
4 That my absence is neither intentional nor willful
but due to above said reason.
Deponent
Verification:
Verified at Delhi on this 16th day of March 2010

that all the contents of above affidavit are
correct and true to the best of my knowledge and
belief and nothing has been concealed therefrom.
Deponent
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH ASJ KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S KALLU @ NADEEM

FIR NO.26/2009
U/S 186/353/307/34 IPC
P.S.CRIME BRANCH
D.O.H. 05.04.2010
ACCUSED IN J.C.
APPLICATION FOR MEETING WITH THE ACCUSED KALLU @

NADEEM S/O SH. NAZAR ALI ON BEHALF OF
APPLICANTS/RELATIVES
SIR,

today.
2 That the accused named above is coming
from Tihar Jail for his appearance before
this Hon’ble court today and the applicant/s
is/are the close of relatives of accused and
he/she/they want/s to meet with the accused,
Prayer:
that this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to
allow this application and applicant/s be permitted
to meet with the accused person/s in this case, in
Delhi:
Dated: 05.04.2010 Applicant/s
1. NAZMA(WIFE)
2.MEENA(MOTHER)
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DUTY MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S PRADEEP NAGAR

U/S 379/356/411/34 IPC
FIR NO.455/2010
P.S. SHAKARPUR
VEHICLE NO. DL-7SE-5961

MOBILE MAKE NOKIA
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE THE ARTICLES/ JAMATALASHI AS

PER SEIZURE MEMO, DETAINED BY THE I.O. CONCERNED ON
BEHALF OF ACCUSED
SIR,
1 That at the time of arresting the above

mentioned accused person, the police personally
searched under mention articles in police
station which were taken into possession by the
police as per seizure memo/FARD MEMO.

articles as per seizure memo/fard memo and want
to get the same released by this Hon’ble court,
Prayer:
It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble COURT may kindly be pleased to allow this
application and direct the concerned IO to be
released the articles as per seizure memo/fard memo
in favour of the applicant in this case in the
Delhi:
THROUGH
COUNSEL
(ANKIT SRIVASTAVA)
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K.KHANNA A.S.J. KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S ROHIT SETHI
FIR NO. 31/2005

U/S 498A/304B IPC
P.S. KRISHNA NAGAR
D.O.D. 25.02.2010
APPLICATION FOR RETURN THE TWO FDR OF SURETY NAMED

SHAKUNTLA CHADHA
1 That the applicant stood surety for accused ROHIT

SETHI in this case which has been
decided/ACCQUITTED on 25.02.2010 by this Hon’ble
Court.
2 That TWO original FDR of the surety issued by Axis
Bank, amount to Rs. 50,000/- had been detained
in this case by this Hon’ble court and as case has
been decided therefore there is no need of surety
in this case and now the applicant want to get
his FDR released by this Hon’ble court.
Prayer:

release the two original FDRs of surety, in the
Delhi:
THROUGH
AJAY K.BANSAL(ADV.)
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR MATTO A.D.J. KKD
COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
ARMINDER KAUR V/S MAHINDRA SINGH GARCHA

D.O.D. 15.03.2010
APPLICATION FOR RETURN/RELIEASE THE BIRTH

CERTIFICATE OF GURPREET KAUR AND DEPENDENT PASS
IN ORIGINAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER ARMINDER KAUR
1 That the above noted matter has been deiced on

15.03.2010.
2 That in the above noted case, the birth

certificate of Gurpreet Kaur and dependent pass
issued by Uganda Govt. had been deposited in this
case, as case has been decided, therefore there is
no need to retain the said documents in court
file, hence the applicant/petitioner wants that
the above said documents be released in favour,
Prayer:

release the above said documents to the applicant
in original, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 09.04.2010 Applicant/petitioner
(ARMINDER KAUR)
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KAPOOR A.S.J. KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S PREM SAGAR @ JOHNEY
FIR NO. 182/2009
U/S 302/34 IPC
R/W SECTION 25 A.ACT
P.S. HARSH VIHAR
N.D.O.H.
IN J.C. 10.10.2009

BEHALF OF THE ABOVE NAMED APPLICANT/ACCUSED
SIR,
police of P.S. HARSH VIHAR on instance of
Secret Informer and sent to J.C. on 10.10.2009
and since then he is in custody.
offence as alleged upon him as his name has not
been mentioned in the FIR.
3 That it is necessary to mention here that the
applicant/accused was lifted from his house on
06.10.2009 along with his other three family
members without disclosing any facts thereafter
when the applicant/accused and his family
members raised objections then the family
members of the applicant/accused were released
but the applicant/accused was implicated in the
above noted case falsely by the police on
10.10.2009 as the applicant/accused could not
fulfill the illegal demand of money raised by
the police, in this connection the family
members of applicant/accused has given
complaint to the Lt. Governor of Delhi on
6.10.2010 through telegram.

5 That there is no any circumstantial evidence
connects the applicant/accused in the false
case.
false case.
8 That there is no chance of his absconding or
tampering with P.E.
India.
Prayer:
Delhi:

(IN J.C.)
Through
(TARUN SHARMA) ADV.
FIR NO. 241/2009

P.S. NAND NAGRI
05.03.2010
File taken up today on an application moved on behalf

of registered owner Mohd. Hashim of vehicle No. DL-8CH-
3543 for depositing a sum of Rs. 50,000/-
Present: Applicant in person with counsel.

Heard. Record persued. It is stated as per the order
of d. MACT court, he has been directed to deposit a sum
of Rs. 50,000/- as the vehicle involved was not insured
on the date of incident. Accordingly, he has moved the
present application for depositing the said amount of
Rs. 50,000/-. Let the same be deposit. Rs. 50,000/-
has been deposited vide receipt No. 0616935 dated
5.3.2010, hence the present application is disposed
off. Put up for date already fixed.
Shivali Sharma
MM/KKD/05.03.2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. K.S. PAL JUDGE ELECTRICITY DELHI

INRE:
BSES V/S SURATI
C.C. NO.
U/S 135 E.ACT
P.S. MANDAWALI
D.O.H. 16.03.2010
APPLCIATION FOR GRANT OF BAIL ON BEHALF OF THE ABOVE

NAMED APPLICANT/ACCUSED PERSON
SIR,

complainant on instance of false information
and reports.

3 That no theft in any nature was ever done by

the applicant/accused as the applicant/accused
is victim of circumstances and just to extort
money he has been falsely implicated by the
complainant.


false case.



India.

Prayer:

Delhi:

Through
(MOMIN KHAN) ADV.

INRE:
STATE V/S SUNNY

FIR NO. 1007/2006
U/S 279/337 IPC
P.S.SHAKARPUR
D.O.H. 27.04.2010
APPLICATIOIN UNDER SECTION 265-B ( OF CHAPTER XXI-
A) CR.P.C. IN RESPECT OF “PLEA BARGAINING”.
1 That the applicant has been facing trial in the

above noted matter.
2 That above noted case is pending before this
Hon’ble court and fixed for 27.04.2010 and is
at the stage of APPEARANCE.
3 That as per FIR/complaint the accused alleged
to have committed offence(s) punishable 279/337
IPC.
4 That the applicant has preferred this
application voluntarily after understanding the
nature of allegations against him and the
extent of punishment provided under the law for
the offence(s) in question.
5 That the applicant has not previously been
convicted by any court in a case in which he
had been charged with the same offence(s).
Prayer:
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed this

Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to consider
the application for plea bargaining, as per the
provisions of Section 265 Cr.P.C.
Delhi: Applicant
Dated:27.04.2010
Through
(S.P.THAKUR)
Adv.
IN THE COURT OF SH. ___________________ MM KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S SUNNY

FIR NO. 1007/2006
U/S 279/337 IPC
P.S.SHAKARPUR
D.O.H. 27.04.2010
AFFIDAVIT IN APPLICATIOIN UNDER SECTION 265-B (
OF CHAPTER XXI-A) CR.P.C. IN RESPECT OF “PLEA
BARGAINING”.
I, SUNNY S/O SH. JAI PAL R/O G-4, PALIKA DHAM, NEAR
ASHOKA CHURCH, GOLE MARKET, NEW DELHI-110001, do hereby
1 I say that I have filed the accompanying

application for plea bargain in accordance with
the provisions of SECTION 265( OF CHAPTER XXI-A)
Cr.P.C. I say that this application is made
voluntarily, without any influence and pressure.
2 I say and submit that I understand the contents of

the application and that I am aware of the nature
and extent of punishment provided by law in this
case.
3 I say that I have not previously been convicted in

a case in which I have been charged with the same
offence as the one in the present matter.
Deponent
Verification:
Verified at Delhi on this 27TH day of April 2010 that
all the contents of above affidavit are correct and
true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing
has been concealed therefrom.
Deponent
s
IN THE COURT OF MS SUNITA GUPTA D.J. KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE
NIKHIL KUNDRA V/S ICICI BANK LTD.

U/S 138 N.I.ACT
C.C. NO.
D.O.H. 16.03.2010
-*
APPLICATION FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT
SIR,

this Hon’ble court and is fixed for today i.e.
16.03.2010.
2 That the counsel for petitioner is unable to
appear before this Hon’ble court today because
he is suffering from Lower Back pain Problems,
therefore the petitioner seeks adjournment in
this case.
3 That absence counsel for petitioner is neither
reason.
Prayer:

adjourn the case for next date, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi
(NIKHIL KUNDRA)
IN THE OF SH. MS. SHIVALI SHARMA, MM KKD COURTS, DELHI

INRE:
STATE V/S ANIS AHMAD

FIR NO. 241/2009
U/S 279/338 IPC
P.S. NAND NAGRI
N.D.O.H. 29.04.2010
APPLICATION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 50,000/-

WRONGLY DEPOSITED IN THIS HON’BLE COURT ON
5.3.2010 BY THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE
VEHICLE MOHD. HASIM
SIR,
1 That the Judge of MACT Ms. Sujata Kohli, had
directed the applicant registered owner of the
vehicle No. DL-8CH-3543 to deposit Rs. 50,000/-
in the court but not mentioned where the suit
amount to be deposited and the applicant on
5.3.2010 deposited Rs. 50,000/- before this
Hon’ble court as the vehicle was not insured at
the time of incident, but when the applicant
moved an application for release the vehicle
before the Hon’ble MACT Court on 16.03.2010,
then the Hon’ble court of Ms. Sujata Kohli,
refused to release the vehicle because the
amount was not deposited in the MACT Court, and
the application was adjourned for date fixed
with the direction to deposit Rs. 50,000/- in
the MACT Court and advise to withdraw Rs.
50,000/- from this Hon’ble court.
Prayer:
release/withdraw Rs. 50,000/- to the
applicant/registered owner of the vehicle, in
Delhi:
Dated: 16.03.2010 Applicant/registered
Owner
Through
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KHANEGWAL, MM KKD COURGS,

DELHI
INRE:
JAGDISH SARAN V/S DR. R.K. PANCHAL
U/S 138 N.I.ACT
P.S. BHAJANPURA
D.O.H. 24.04.2010
APPLICATION FOR FURNISHING THE FRESH ADDRESS
OF THE ACCUSED
SIR,
this Hon’ble court and same is fixed for
24.04.2010.
2 That this Hon’ble court was issued the bailable
warrants against the accused for the last date
of hearing through SHO, P.S. Bhajanpura, but
the warrant issued by this Hon’ble court has
been returned unexecuted with the remarks the
accused left with the address mentioned in the
complaint.
3 That the complainant has traced out the fresh
address of the accused and the same is being
given below:
Dr. R.K. Panchal S/o Sh. D.S. Panchal, R/o Plt
No.18, House No. T-2, Extn.I, Dheeraj
Apartment, Shalimar Garden, Ghaziabad, U.P.
Prayer:
this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to taken
on record the fresh address of the accused and
summon / notice/ warrants be sent to fresh address
of the accused given hereinabove on the date
fixed, in this case, in the interest of justice.
Delhi
Through
KANTI PRASAD (ADV.)
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KHANEGWAL, MM KKD COURGS,
DELHI
INRE:
JAGDISH SARAN V/S DR. R.K. PANCHAL
U/S 138 N.I.ACT
P.S. BHAJANPURA
D.O.H. 24.04.2010
AMENDED MEMO OF PARTIES
SH. JAGDISH SHARAN

S/O SH. NEPAL SINGH
R/O B-287/1, GALI NO.12,
BHAJANPURA, DELHI-53
COMPLAINANT
V E R S U S
DR. R.K. PANCHAL

S/O SH. D.S. PANCHAL,
R/O PLT NO.18, HOUSE NO. T-2,
EXTN.I, DHEERAJ APARTMENT,
SHALIMAR GARDEN, GHAZIABAD, U.P.
ACCUSED
Delhi
Through
KANTI PRASAD (ADV.)
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKUR JAIN MM KKD COURTS, DELHI

INRE:
STATE V/S GAFFAR
FIR NO. 866/2006
U/S 25/54/59 A.ACT
P.S. WELCOME
N.D.O.H. 29.04.2010
IN J.C.

SIR,

police of P.S. WELCOME and sent to J.C. on



false case.



India.
Prayer:

Delhi:

(IN J.C.)
Through
(AMAR NATH & M.A.

ANSARI) ADV.

INRE:
STATE V/S GAFFAR
FIR NO. 866/2006
U/S 25/54/59 A.ACT
P.S. WELCOME
N.D.O.H. 29.04.2010
IN J.C.
OF THE ABOVE NAMED APPLICANT/ACCUSED PERSON GAFFAR
SIR,
hearing because he unfortunately wrongly noted
down the wrong date of hearing and due to non-
appearance NBW had been issued against him, in
this connection an application for cancellation
of NBW had been moved before this Hon’ble court
which was dismissed and the accused was sent to
Judicial custody on 15.03.2010, since then he
is in J.C.
date of hearing and will be more careful in
future.
4 That there is no person in house to lookafter
his wife, children and other family members.

Prayer:
Delhi:
Through
MANJARI S/O MOHD. MAJEED

04 MAY 1971

04 MAY 1971
FIROJ KHAN S/O SHAFEEL KHAN

02 MARCH 1984
02 MARCH 1984
BABAN SING S/O KHIJU SINGH

01 FEBRUARY 1957

04 MAY 1971

04 MAY 1971

02 MARCH 1984

02 MARCH 1984

01 FEBRUARY 1957

04 MAY 1971

04 MAY 1971

02 MARCH 1984

02 MARCH 1984

01 FEBRUARY 1957

04 MAY 1971

04 MAY 1971

02 MARCH 1984

02 MARCH 1984

01 FEBRUARY 1957

04 MAY 1971

04 MAY 1971

02 MARCH 1984

02 MARCH 1984

01 FEBRUARY 1957
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJEEV MEHRA JUDGE MACT KKD COURTS,
DELHI
INRE:
CLAIM PETITION NO. ____OF ____
IN THE MATTER OF:
GAGAN GHANSAL V/S DEVI RAM

D.O.H. 17.03.2010
APPLICATION FOR SEEKING AMENDMENT IN THE PETITION

FILED BY THE PETITIONER
SIR,

2 That the applicant who is the petitioner in the
above noted case due to lack of knowledge could not
make party as respondent No.2 to the insurance
company i.e. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 30-31A,
Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 being insurer,
while the applicant/petitioner filed wrong name and
address of insurance company, also the
applicant/petitioner could not file/submit other
address of the respondent No.1 i.e. H.No. 131,Near
Dharmbir Sweets Vill. Garhi Choukhandi, Post
Office Parthala Khanjarpur, Sector-63, NOIDA,
UP.
3 That now the applicant/petitioner wants to make
party as respondent No.2 mentioned above in place
previous respondent No.2 to the above said matter
as insurance company to get compensation amount
jointly or severally from the respondent No.1 as
well as respondent No.2.
4 That mistakes made by the applicant/petitioner were
neither intentional nor willful but due to above
said reason.
5 That if the above said amendment is not allowed
then the applicant/petitioner shall suffer an
irreparable loss and injuries which an not be
compensated in any manner.
Prayer:
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it
is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
application and above amendment be accepted and
taken on record and the respondent No.2 i.e.
Insurance company be pleased implead as
party/respondent No.2 in place of previous
insurance company i.e. The New India Assurance
Co.Ltd. in the above noted case and also the
second address of respondent No.1 be taken on
record as amendment, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
(ARUN SHARMA)
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJEEV MEHRA JUDGE MACT KKD COURTS,
DELHI
INRE:
CLAIM PETITION NO. ____OF ____
IN THE MATTER OF:
GAGAN GHANSAL V/S DEVI RAM

D.O.H. 17.03.2010
AMENDED MEMO OF PARTIES
GAGAN GHANSAL
S/O SH. BHAGWAN SINGH
PERMANENT ADDRESS: H.NO. WB-114,
BLOCK WB, SHAKARPUR, DELHI-110092.
PERMANENT R/O FALT NO. 1B, 1ST FLOOR,

KRISHNA PURI MARKET, MANDAWALI ROAD,
DELHI
PETITIONER
V E R S U S
1 DEVEE RAM (OWNER)
S/O SH. CHANDRAMAL
R/O H.NO. A-523/A, BLOCK-A,
NEW ASHOK NAGAR, DELHI
Also at: H.No. 131,
Near Dharmbir Sweets
Vill. Garhi Choukhandi,
Post Office Parthala Khanjarpur,
Sector-63, NOIDA, UP
2 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, (INSURER)

30-31A, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi-110002.
RESPONDENTS
DELHI:
DATED: 17.03.2010 PETITIONER
THROUGH
COUNSEL
(Arun Sharma)

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S MUKESH KUMAR

FIR NO. 150/2010
U/S 304B/498/34 IPC
P.S.KARAWAL NAGAR
D.O.H. 18.10.2010
APPLICATION FOR SUPPLY THE DEFICIT COPIES ON

BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSON
Sir,

2 sThat the following deficit copies have not

been supplied to the accused which is necessary
for accused:
A. Statement of P.K. SOFAT (EX. MAGISTRATE)

B. Statement of H.C. Hoshiar Singh
C. Statement of H.C. Omkar Dutt.
D. Statement of Dr. Irfan Rehman.
E. Statement of Dr. Neha Gupta
F. Statement of Const. Rajiv Kumar
G. Statement of Insp. Satya Prakash
H. Statement of Insp. Virender
I. MHC (M) case property with OF FIR NO. 150/10
J. Photograph of place of incident
K. Copy of MLC of deceased No. B-2588/10
L. Copy of Seizure memo, personal memo
M. Copy of Inquest papers
N. Copy of J.C. form 6 pages
O. Copy of Conviction slip
P. Copy of APP + NBW
Prayer:

this hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to pass
an order to be supplied the above noted deficit
copies to the accused in this case, in the
Delhi:
Through
DINESH KUMAR
Advocate

INRE:
STATE V/S RAM PRAKASH
FIR NO. 144/2003
U/S 279/304 IPC
P.S. MAYUR VIHAR
VEHICLE NO.DL-1PA-0087
APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF SUPERDARI ON

BEHALF OF SUPERDAR JITIN
SIR,
1 That in the above noted case, the above said

vehicle was got released on superdari by the
applicant/superdar/owner on furnishing a
superdginama like amount of
Rs._________________.
2 That now the said vehicle is not in position to
run on road as it has become above 15 years
old and as per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court,
the vehicle which is old more than 15 years can
not be plied, therefore the applicant/superdar
wants to dispose off the said vehicle for which
cancellation of superdari over the vehicle is
necessary, hence this application.
Prayer:
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is
therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
application and superdari over the said vehicle be
cancelled, in this case, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 17.03.2010 Applicant/superdar
Through
Counsel
(UMA KANT MISHRA)
IN THE COURT OF SH. R.P.S. TEJI A.S.J. KKD COURT DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S RAFIQUE
S/O HARA MOHD.
FIR NO. 69/2010
U/S 186/147/148./149
152/323/253/307/394
395/412/34 IPC
P.S. SEEMA PURI
IN J.C. 02.03.2010

SIR,
police of P.S. SEEMAPURI and sent to J.C. on

offence as alleged upon him as on the day of
arrest the applicant/accused was sitting at
shop of his Maternal Uncle from where the
accused was lifted and after that he was
falsely implicated in the above noted case.
3 That other co-accused persons namely Noor

Hasan, Kale, Rajesh, Shairon, Yasmeen have
already been released on bail.

false case.

convict and he is only earning member of his
family, having old aged ailing mother and in
his absence his entire family has come under
the verge of starvation.


India.

Prayer:

Delhi:

(IN J.C.)
Through
(AJEET SINGH) ADV.
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJEEV MEHRA ADJ/JUDGE MACT (EAST)

KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
SANJEEV KUMAR V/S SHER SINGH ETC.

ENQUIRY NO.65F/10
FIR NO. 20/2010
U/S 279/337 IPC
P.S. JAGATPURI
N.D.O.H. 17.04.2010
VEHICLE NO. DL-5CB-3411
APPLICATION FOR NOT TO IMPOUND THE SAID VEHICLE
ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED/OWNER/SUPERDAR
SIR,

2 That the applicant is the owner of above noted

vehicle, which has been released on superdari
on 23.01.2010 by order of Hon’ble Court of Sh.
Puran Chand, MM KKD Courts, Delhi after
funishing a superdarinama like amount of Rs.
1,25,000/-.
3 That now this Hon’ble court has passed an order

dt.16.03.2010 to make enquiry over the said
vehicle and also has directed the
owner/superdar to deposit Rs. 50,000/- as FDR
in this case.
4 That the applicant/owner has apprehension that
the above noted vehicle can be impounded by the
IO concerned, while the applicant/owner wants
to settle the above noted matter with the
injured therefore, he also wants that above
said matter be transferred to Mediation cell
for fast relief.
Prayer:
In view of the above facts and circumstances

it is therefore, most respectfully prayed
to allow this application and no proceeding
regarding impounding the said vehicle be
proceeded and the matter be transferred to
mediation cell for settlement, in the
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
(ADARSH KUMAR)
IN THE COURT OF SH. P.S. TEJI, LD. DISTT. JUDGE (EAST)

KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S SANT RAM @ SANTU
S/O SH. SOHAN LAL
R/O H.NO. 56, OLD
MAUJPUR, DELHI-53
FIR NO. 447/96
U/S 302/34 IPC
P.S. BHAJANPURA
APPLICATION FOR SURRENDER ON BEHALF OF ABOVE

NAMED APPLICANT/ACCUSED
SIR,
1 That in the above noted the Hon’ble High Court
has directed the applicant/accused to be
surrender before concerned court for remaining
sentence as appeal filed by the
applicant/accused against conviction has
already been dismissed by the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi vide order dt. 14.09.2009,
therefore, the applicant/accused wants
surrender before this Hon’ble court
voluntarily.
2 That it is pertinent to mention here that the
applicant/accused has been convicted (life
imprisonment) by Hon’ble trial court of Ms.
Manju Goyal ASJ, on 16.05.2001.
Prayer:
Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to accepted the
surrender of accused, in this case, in the interest
of justice.
Delhi:

Through
Counsel
(A.K.BANSAL)
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KHANAGWAL MM KKD COURTS,
DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S GAYAS IQBAL
FIR NO. 146/2006
U/S 279/338 IPC
P.S. SEELAMPUR
APPLICATION FOR DEPOSIT OF VOTER I.CARD OF

THE SURETY ON BEHALF OF APPLCIANT/ACCUSED
SIR,
2 That the original Election I.card of the surety
had been released by this Hon’ble court for his
personal use with the condition to deposit the
same again before this Hon’ble court,
therefore, the accused want to deposit the
above said E.I.Card before this Hon’ble court
as the accused is the Niece of surety.
Prayer:
application and E.I.Card of surety be taken on
record, in this case, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE ACJM GHAZIABAD, U.P.

INRE:
RAMPAL V/S RAMESH CHANDEL
C.C. 1707/07
U/S 138 N.I.ACT
P.S. KAVI NAGAR
L.D.O.H. 02.02.2010
D.O.H. 18.03.2010
APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BW ISSUED AGAINST THE

ACCUSED
Sir,

18.03.2010.
2 That the accused has regularly been paying

the installment and already Rs. 40,000/-
has been paid to the complainant.
3 That the accused is patient of Cancer due

to which he could not appear before this
Hon’ble court and due non-appearance BW
had been issued against him.

said reason and he undertakes to appear as
and when he is directed by this Hon’ble
court.
Prayer:

to cancel the BW issued against the ACCUSED
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
(IRFAN AKHTAR)
To,
The Ld. District Judge (VII)

Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Sub: Application for allotment of chamber
Sir,
The applicant is the practicing lawyer in Karkardooma
Courts and has been regularly sitting member of KKD
Courts, Delhi since 1996, but the name of applicant has
not been mentioned in the list of allotment of chamber
for advocates of KKD Courts, as firstly the applicant
had applied for single chamber, but when the Hon’ble
Authority asked from the advocates further affidavit
for double chamber, that time the applicant was not
aware about the same due to which she could not filed
further affidavit for allotment of chamber for doubles.
Now it is hereby humbly requested that kindly allot the

chamber to the applicant being sitting member of KKD
Courts, Delhi since 1996.
I will be obliged.
Applicant
Bena Anand
En.No. D-1673/95
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR GARTAM, MM KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S MEERA KUSHWAHA ETC.
FIR NO. 21/2006
U/S 323/500/506/34 IPC
L.D.O.H. 12.01.2010
N.D.O.H. 13.04.2010
APPLICATION U/S 302(2) CR.P.C. FOR SEEKING
PERMISSION TO PROCEED THE CASE BY GRAND SON OF
COMPLAINANT LALIT KUSHWAHA AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
SIR,
1 That the complainant Sh. G.S. Kushwaha has
expired on 3/6/2008.
2 That the above said case was registered on the
basis of application U/s 156(3) cr.p.c on the
direction of this Hon’ble court.
3 That the applicant wants to proceed the case
and became the additional witness because the
accused persons still estending the threats to
the family of complainant Sh. G.S. Kushwaha.
Prayer:
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed to your
Honour that the applicant may kindly be pleased to
allowed to proceed the case and became additional
witness in the interest of justice.

Delhi:
(LALIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA)
THROUGH
Counsel
To,
The Hon’ble Distt. & Sessions Judge,

KKD Courts, Delhi.
Sub: Objection
Sir,
It is most respectfully submitted that I am in practicing for Last about

more than 10 years, I am working with Mrs. Poonam Rani Advocate for many
years jointly as Mrs. Rani is not only neighbour but my relative as well
as having common work. At the time of giving the name in option in
affidavit for allotment of chamber, I gave the name of Mrs. Poonam Rani
because of the above noted reason. Being a neighbour/relative and common
work I am feeling uncomfortable with Mr. Narender Pal Arora(Advocate). It
is also pertinent to mention that Mrs. Poonam Rani has also given my name
in option, so that both should be given preference.
It is therefore, most graciously prayed that my option which I gave in my

application form may kindly be considered and the chamber allotted to me
sharing with SH. NARENDER PAL ARORA (Advocate) may kindly be changed, in
Applicant
Sanjeev Kumar(Adv.)
En.No. D/48A/99
MOB.NO.9810917240
MRS. POONAM RANI
EN.NO. D-682/1998(R)
MOBILE NO. 9810234872
BEFORE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSON
CLUB BUILDING,
NEAR POST OFFICE,
OLD JNU CAMPUS,
NEW DELHI-110067
Sub: Written objection on behalf of the complainant
Sir,
It is most respectfully submits as under:
1
To,
Chamber Allotment Committee Incharge,

KKD Courts, Delhi.
Sub: Applicant has been not included in chambers

allotment list.
Sir
1 That the applicant is a regular practicing

advocate at Shahdara, Delhi and regular members
since 6th day of December 2008, practicing from
seat No. K-123, Patel Hall, 4th Floor, KKD
Courts, Delhi.
2 That the applicant has applied for chamber and
completed the formalities directed by the
chamber allotment committed and in displayed
list, applicant’s seniority number was 1076.
3 That the applicant came to know from displayed
of the chamber, some advocate who was enrolled
after me in SBA and I am a senior than those
advocate who are included in allotment list,
but my name is not there.
Therefore, it is requested to the Hon’ble

Authority to include my name and take proper
action for allotment of chamber to applicant.
Applicant
Kundan Kumar
E.No. D-2457/08
Delhi:Dated 17.03.2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKUR JAIN MM KKD COURTS DELHI
INRE:
SONA DEVI V/S SANT RAM

C.C. NO. 9095/2008
U/S 323/354/506 IPC
P.S. M.S. PARK
SIR,

police of P.S. M.S. PARK on instance of false
complaint of complainant.
2 That the applicant/accused is totally

innocent person and he has nothing to do with
the offence as alleged upon him.
3 That above sections are bailable, while the

applicant/accused is victim circumstances and
has been falsely implicated under a
conspiracy.

applicant/accused is false and frivolous
which are beyond the truth while a under a
conspiracy he has been implicated falsely in
the said false case.



India.

Prayer:

Delhi:
(IN J.C.)
Through
(JAGMOHAN SINGH)
ADV.
To,

KKD Courts, Delhi.
Sub: Objection
Sir,
It is most respectfully submitted that I am in

practicing for Last about more than 8 years, I am
working with Mr. VED PRAKASH GAUR Advocate for many
years jointly being common work. At the time of giving
the name in option in affidavit for allotment of
chamber, I gave the name of Mr. VED PRAKASH GAUR
because of the above noted reason. Being common work I
am feeling uncomfortable with Mr. A.ALI KHAN
(Advocate). It is also pertinent to mention that Mr.
VED PRAKASH GAUR has also given my name in option, so
that both should be given preference.
It is therefore, most graciously prayed that my option

which I gave in my application form may kindly be
considered and the chamber allotted to me sharing with
SH. A.ALI KHAN (Advocate) may kindly be changed WITH
Mr. VED PRAKASH GAUR, in the interest of justice.
Applicant
RAVI KUMAR(Adv.)
En.No. D/620/2002
MOBILE NO. 9891164680
L-18, GROUND FLOOR,
TILAK HALL, KKD COURTS,
DELHI-110032
To,

KKD Courts, Delhi.
Sub: Application for seeking permission to mutually

exchange the allotted chamber
Hon’ble Sir,
1 That the applicant is one of the senior

allottee advocate in the chamber allotment list
in Block at chamber Sr.No. 512, in another
block-F, chamber S.No. 512 is allotted to Mr.
Ramesh Kumar, and mutually it is decided by
both seniors that name of applicants be
transferred at Sr.No. _______ at place of E-512
to F-512, allottee of chamber No. F-512 having
not any objection to exchange the physical
possession of chamber.
It is therefore most respectfully prayed allow

the present application by giving exchange the
chamber.
Applicants
The ACP,
P.S. VIVEK VIHAR,
Distt. East,
Delhi-110095.
Sub: Application for release the vehicle bearing

No. DL-5S-E-3226
Sir,
1 That the applicant is the registered owner of
the vehicle bearing No. DL-5SE-3226.
2 That the said vehicle was lifted by the police
of P.S. VIVEK VIHAR on 08.05.2010 at about 2.30
PM unclaimed vehicle.
3 That being son of registered owner (who is
unable to appear), I want to get the said
vehicle released by your authority and ready to
pay the fine whatsoever shall be imposed by
you.
4 That I shall be fully responsible if any other
person claim regarding the ownership of the
said vehicle.
5 That the concerned authority shall be kept
harmless or shall be indemnified for all
losses, charges, expenses, litigation if any
occur.
It is therefore, most humbly requested that
kindly release the said vehicle to the
applicant/ AR of the registered company.
Yours truly,
Applicant
MEHMOOD
S/o SH. NANHE
R/O 42/13, KHUREJI KHAS
DELHI-110051
Delhi:
Dated: 23.03.2010
IN THE COURT OF MS SUNITA GUPTA, DISTT. JUDGE NORTH

EAST DISTT. KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
1 PRADEEP KUMAR (HUSBAND)

S/O LATE SH. BIRBAL SINGH
R/O H.NO.25, BLOCK-2,
GALI NO.2, SONIA VIHAR,
DELHI-110094
2 PARMESHWAR DAYAL (BROTHER-IN-LAW/JETH)

R/O H.NO. 24A, BLOCK-G-3,
SONIA VIHAR, DELHI-110053
3 PUSHPA (SISTER-IN-LAW/NANAD)
W/O SH. SATPAL GAUTAM
4 SATPAL (BROTHER-IN-LAW/NANDOI)
BOTH R/O KHORA COLONY,
DISTT. GHAZIABAD, U.P.
5 RAJBALA (SISTER-IN-LAW/NANAD)
W/O SH. SURAJ BHAN
6 SURAJ BHAN
BOTH R/O H.NO. 204, 4TH PUSTA,
GAUTAM VIHAR, NORTH-GHONDA,
DELHI-110094.
V e r s u s
THE STATE
FIR NO. NOT KNOWN

U/S 498A/406/34 IPC
P.S. CAW CELL
NAND NAGRI, DISTT.
NORTH-EAST, DELHI
FIRST BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. FOR GRANT

OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL ON BEHALF OF NAMED APPLICANTS
HON’BLE MADAM,

1 That the above noted applicants are residing
at the above noted address, permanently with
their family members.
2 That the applicant No.1 got married with th
Smt. Anita D/o Late Sh. Jagdish Singh R/o

H.No. 54, Gali No.4, Garhi Maindu,
Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053, with the simple
manner without performing the dowry articles,
in the presence of kith and keens and friends
of both the parties.
3 That the complainant Smt. Anita compelled the
applicant No.1 to live in her parental home
and pressed to purchase the house near house
of her parents, but the applicant No.1 is
living in poor condition, due to which he is
living in rented accommodation at the above
noted case as he is not capable to purchase a
new house near the parental house of
complainant.
4 That on 10.03.2009 when the applicant No.1
gone to his job, in the absence of applicant
No.1 the complainant namely Smt. Anita left
the company of the applicant No.1 and before
leaving her matrimonial home she took her
entire gold and silver ornaments, costly
cloths, valuable articles and cash Rs.
10,000/- without informing the applicant
No.1.
5 That the applicant No.1 went to parental home
of the complainant to take back the
complainant, but the complainant did not join

the company of the applicant No.1 without
disclosing any reasonable cause and the
family members of the complainant threatened
the applicant saying that ‘IF YOU COME AGAIN
TO TAKE BACK THE COMPLAINANT, WE SHALL
IMPLICATE YOU AND YOUR FAMILY MEMEBERS IN
FALSE DOWRY DEMAND CASE”.
6 That the applicant No.1 sent to legal notice
u/s 9 of HMA to join the company of the
applicant No.1 but the complainant did not
join the company of the applicant No.1 and
filed a counter complaint U/s 498A/406/ IPC
against the above noted applicants before the
CAW Cell, Nand Nagri, Distt. North East,
Delhi.
7 That the applicants as per direction /notice
joined the investigation continuously without
delay, which proceeding is going on till time
and at the time of going on investigation the
complainant given the dowry articles to the
applicant No.1 without any bills and slips of
the articles, thereafter the applicant No.1
filed a admit list of the dowry articles to
the CAW Cell and as per direction of
concerned I.O., the applicant No.1 ready to
return the dowry articles as per admit list,

but the complainant is not ready to take the
dowry articles as per admit list.
8 That the above noted applicant have much
apprehension that the police officials of CAW
Cell can lodge the FIR against the applicants
at any time in future in the above noted case
and can arrest them at any odd hours.
9 That the applicant No.1 filed a case against
the complainant U/s 9 of HMA for
restoration of conjugal right which is
pending before the Hon’ble court of MS Vanita
Goel, ADJ, KKD Courts, Delhi which is fixed
for 8.4.2010 for further proceeding.
10 That the applicants belong to respectable and
poor family having clean antecedents, and no
case is pending against them in any court of
law in Delhi and out of Delhi and no adverse
order issued against them.
11 That the applicants undertakes not to leave
India without permission of this Hon’ble
court/concerned IO, if they are released on
anticipatory bail.
12 That the applicants are ready to join the
investigation as and when required by this
Hon’ble court as well as concerned SHO/IO.

13 That the applicants are ready to abide by all
the terms and condition imposed by this
Hon’ble court.
14 That the applicants undertakes not to tamper
the prosecution witness till the pendency of
the this case.
15 That the applicants are ready to furnish the
reliable and sound surety to the entire
satisfaction of this Hon’ble court/SHO/IO
concerned.
Prayer:

this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to grant
anticipatory bail to the applicants thereby
applicants in the event of their arrest, in the
Delhi:
Dated: 18.03.2010 Applicants

Through
(RAM KUAMR) ADV.

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
INRE:
STATE VS MOHD. IQBAL
S/O SH. GUL MOHAMMED
R/O B-2,/172, GALI NO.3
3RD PUSTA, SONIA VIHAR
DELHI-110094
FIR NO. 411/2007

U/S 323/354/452/308/34 IPC
P.S. KHAJOORI KHAS
FIRST APPLICTION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL U/S 438 CR.P.C.

ON BEHALF OF ABOVE NAMED APPLICANT/ACCUSED
SIR,
1 That the applicant/accused has been falsely implicated by the

police of P.S. KHAJOORI KHAS, only on the basis of the false
statement of the complainant.
2 That the injured has already been injured from the hospital on the
same day and there is only simple injury on the body of injured.
3 That as per the allegations of the complainant, there is

contradictory role of the applicant/accused to caught hold the injured
but in fact the applicant/accused was out of station at the time of
occurrence and only he has been implicated in this case on basis of
enmity as the applicant/accused is a social worker of area.
4 That no useful purpose will be served if applicant be kept in J.C. as

nothing is to be recovered from the possession or instance of
applicant/accused, so there is no need of custodial interrogation.
5 That the applicant/accused is not previous convict and thee is no

criminal or civil case over the applicant/accused so far and the
applicant/accused is aged about 38 years.
6 That co-accused namely Shafi , Ashfaq have already been released

on permanent bail from Ld. Juvenile court.
7 That the applicant/accused is ready abide by the terms and

conditions if any imposed by this Hon’ble court.
8 That the applicant/accused is the permanent resident of Delhi,

therefore there is no chance of his absconding or tampering with
prosecution evidence.
9 That the applicant/accused having six minor children and wife and
he is only earning member of his family and if he is not released on
anticipatory bail, then the future of applicant/accused and his family
members shall come under the dark.
10 That the applicant/accused is ready to furnish the reliable surety to

the entire satisfaction of this Hon’ble court.
Prayer:
It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court

may kindly be pleased to release the applicants on anticipatory bail
by directing the concerned SHO/IO, in the event of their arrest, in
Delhi:
Dated: 27.10.2007 Applicants/accused persons
Through
(JITENDER KUMAR PARASHAR)

ADVOCATE
IN THE COURT OF SH. S.S. MALHOTRA A.D.J. KKD COURTS,
DELHI
INRE:
SUIT NO. _____OF _____
IN THE MATTER OF:
A.P. AGGARWAL V/S M/S BLISS ENTERPRISES

N.D.O.H. 7.5.2010
APPLICATION FOR SEEKING PERMISSION TO INSPECTION OF CASE

FILE ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
SIR,

1. That the above noted case is pending before
this Hon’ble court and fixed for 07.05.2010
2. That the applicant is the counsel for the

respondent in this case and wants to inspect
the case file for necessary purpose.
PRAYER:

this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased allow
this application, in this case, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Dated: APPLICANT
KRISHAN KUMAR
COUNSEL FOR
RESPONDENT
INRE:
CHANDA V/S PREM PAL ETC.

C.C. NO. 5433/2008
P.S. FARSH BAZAR
D.O.H. 05.04.2010
APPLICATION FOR SEEKING PERMISSION TO INSPECTION OF CASE

FILE ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT
SIR,

this Hon’ble court and is fixed for 05.04.2010.

necessary purpose.
PRAYER:

this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased allow
this application, in this case, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 18.03.2010 APPLICANT/complainant
CHANDA
BEFORE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SH. MADAN B.LOKUR DELHI

HIGH COURT.
SUBJECT: IMPUTATION IN THE CHAMBERS ALLOTMENT IN

KARKARDOOMA COURTS, COMPLEX.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice.
It is for your kind attention and

intervention in regard of allotment of chambers in
Karkardooma Courts Complex, Delhi-32.
That earlier chamber allotment committee had
displaced a merit list ( enclosed herewith as
annexure-A) which consists the names of
applicants/objectioners), which has been
highlighted in the list by highlighter.
It was utter surprise, the chambers allotment

list displayed yesterday, does not bear the name
of these persons/applicants, the reason best known
to the chamber allotment committee. However, none
of the applicants ever been asked with any show
cause notice for explanation as to why applicants
were not deserved on their respective merits.
There are many successful members, those are

neither the regular practitioner nor deserve as
few of them already having chambers at Tis Hazari
Court Complex/Patiala House. We have also named
few of the as in the enclosed list (annexure-B).
It is also pertinent to mention that many of

the successful members have furnished fake details
in respect of their case diary, obviously it
amounts to be an offence in the administration of
justice.
Therefore, it is apparent that many senior

members including the applicants have been
intentionally ignore/omitted by the committee.
It is also pertinent to mention here that

none of the applicants ever been disqualified by
the bar association for their eligibility on their
respective merits, moreover, none of the
applicants ever been involved in any case.
It is also pertinent to mention here that the
members of the committee on behalf of the bar
association wer looks to be biased as they have
succeed to achieve their political target by way
of facilitation as to prove/accommodate the
chambers for their personal supporters who are not
entitled for chamber because they are indulged in
a business of property dealing or not a regular
member and have no judicial work in their business
and also not appeared before any court of law,
these type of members are also dangerous as and
when they got opportunity before the court,
apparently they shall create nuisance in the court
as well as in the bar.
We hereby humbly pray before your Lordship to

make personal intervention and to save the
chambers from the hands of the grabbers and oblige
the actual practicing advocates including
applicants on their respective merits.
IN THE COURT OF MS SHIWALI SHARMA M.M. KKD COURTS,
DELHI
INRE:
SSMT. ARUNA DEVI MISHRA V/S SARVESH PRIYA SRIVASTAVA

U/S 138 N.I.ACT
P.S. NEW USMAN PUR
D.O.H. 15.04.2010
A F F I D A V I T
I, ARUNA DEVI MISRHA W/O SH. RAM NATH MISHRA R/O E-659,
GALI NO.2, JAGJIT NAGAR, DELHI-110031, do hereby
1 That I am the complainant in the above noted

case.
2 That I approached to office of accused
alongwith Dasti Summon for accused issued by
the Hon’ble court, where she found that office
of accused has been shifted to other place, the
landlord of said office did not tell anything
about the actual place of office.
Deponent
Verification:
Verified at Delhi on this 15th day of April 2010

Deponent
IN THE COURT OF SH. DILBAGH SINGH PUNIA, A.S.J.(O1-

EAST) KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE
SESSION CASE NO. 363/2006
IN THE MATTER OF:
STATE V/S SUKHLAL & OTHERS

FIR NO. 374/2004
U/S 308/325/323/34 IPC
P.S. KALYAN PURI
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE THE AMOUNT OF Rs.

32,000/- DEPOSITED BY THE ACCUSED PERSONS
NAMELY ANIL AND TINKU (Rs. 16,000/- BY EACH
ACCUSED ) IN FAVOUR OF COMPLAINANT KAMLESH @
KRISHNA W/O SH. RAMESH R/O 9A/42, TRILOK
PURI, DELHI-110091.
Sir,
1 That in the above noted case an order has been

passed by this Hon’ble court on 17.03.2009, as
per the said order the accused Anil and Tinku
were directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- as
compensation along with Rs. 2000/- as costs
(Rs. 16,000/- for each accused).
2 That the said amount of Rs. 32,000/- has been
deposited by the accused persons before this
Hon’ble court, but till time the said amount
has not been sent/given to the
complainant/injured above named.
3 That the applicant/complainant requested to
this Hon’ble court that above said amount be
released/given to the complainant above named
in compliance of the above said order.
4 That the applicant/complainant is a very poor
lady and she is needy for the said amount.
Prayer:
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed

to release the above said amount of Rs.
32,000/- to the complainant /injured above
named, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
(K.K.SINGH)
IN THE COURT OF MS REENA SINGH NAAG P.O. M.A.C.T.

PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, DELHI
INRE
CLAIM PETITION NO.
THE MATTER OF:
MASTER UPENDER V/S RAMESH SHARMA

APPLICATION FOR RELEASE THE CHEQUE OF RS.
__________/- DEPOSITED BY INSURANCE COMPANY
IN FAVOUR OF _______________________________
Sir,
1 That in the above noted case the insurance

company has deposited a cheque of Rs. _________
as compensation amount in favour of
injured/complainant, which came into the
knowledge of complainant/applicant, therefore
he wants to get the same released in his
favour.
Prayer:

to release the above said cheque to the
applicant / complainant /injured, in the
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
(K.K.SINGH)
INRE:
SHALINI V/S MANOJ KUMAR
EXECUTION NO. 153/2008
IN CASE U/S 125 CR.P.C.
N.D.O.H. 09.04.2010
L.D.O.H. 11.03.2010
APPLICATION FOR SEEKING PERMISSION TO DEPOSIT PART
PAYMENT IN THE ABOVE NOTED EXECUTION ON BEHALF OF
BROTHER OF THE RESPONDENT/JD
SIR,
this Hon’ble court and was fixed for
11.03.2010.
2 That due to non-deposition of maintenance
amount, this Hon’ble court was pleased to pass
an order to send the respondent in JC and since
11.03.2010 the respondent is in J.C.
3 That now the brother of respondent wants to
deposit part payment in the above said
execution before this Hon’ble court and
thereafter the brother of the applicant will be
able to made the payment accordingly.
Prayer:
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it
is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to pass an
order for the part payment of the above said
execution amount and it is further prayed that
this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to pass
an order to release the respondent from Judicial
custody, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
(Rajender Malhotra)
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K.GAUTAM M.M. KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S UNKNOWN
FIR NO. 501/2009
U/S 379 IPC
APPLICATION FOR CALLING THE STATUS REPORT OF
ABOVE NOTED CASE ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPLAIANNT
SIR,
1 That the vehicle of the applicant bearing No.

DL-7CE-6128 has been stolen in this connection
above noted FIR was registered by the police of
P.S. New Ashok Nagar, Delhi, which has not been
yet recovered.
2 That the concerned IO/SHO are not disclosing
the status of the case despite of several
visits of the complainant to P.S., therefore
the complainant wants that status report be
filled by the IO in this case.
Prayer:

direct the concerned IO/SHO to file the status
report in this case, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
(SABHAA PATI TRIPATHI)

THROUGH
(A.K.BANSAL) ADV.
INRE:
PRADEEP KUMAR (HUSBAND)

R/O H.NO.25, BLOCK-2,
GALI NO.2, SONIA VIHAR,
DELHI-110094
V e r s u s
THE STATE
FIR NO. NOT KNOWN

U/S 498A/406/34 IPC
P.S. CAW CELL
NAND NAGRI, DISTT.
NORTH-EAST, DELHI

OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL ON BEHALF OF NAMED APPLICANT
HON’BLE MADAM,
1 That the above noted applicant is residing at
the above noted address, permanently with their
family members.
2 That the applicant got married with th Smt.
Anita D/o Late Sh. Jagdish Singh R/o H.No. 54,
Gali No.4, Garhi Maindu, Bhajanpura, Delhi-
110053, with the simple manner without
performing the dowry articles, in the presence
of kith and keens and friends of both the
parties.
applicant to live in her parental home and
pressed to purchase the house near house of her
parents, but the applicant is living in poor
condition, due to which he is living in rented
accommodation at the above noted case as he is
not capable to purchase a new house near the
parental house of complainant.
4 That on 10.03.2009 when the applicant gone to
his job, in the absence of applicant the
complainant namely Smt. Anita left the company
of the applicant and before leaving her
matrimonial home she took her entire gold and
silver ornaments, costly cloths, valuable
articles and cash Rs. 10,000/- without
informing the applicant .
5 That the applicant went to parental home of the
complainant to take back the complainant, but
the complainant did not join the company of the

applicant without disclosing any reasonable
cause and the family members of the complainant
threatened the applicant saying that ‘IF YOU
COME AGAIN TO TAKE BACK THE COMPLAINANT, WE
SHALL IMPLICATE YOU AND YOUR FAMILY MEMEBERS IN
6 That the applicant sent to legal notice u/s 9
of HMA to join the company of the applicant
but the complainant did not join the company of
the applicant and filed a counter complaint
U/s 498A/406/ IPC against the above noted
applicants before the CAW Cell, Nand Nagri,
Distt. North East, Delhi.
7 That the applicants as per direction /notice
applicant without any bills and slips of the
articles, thereafter the applicant filed a
admit list of the dowry articles to the CAW
Cell and as per direction of concerned I.O.,
the applicant ready to return the dowry
articles as per admit list, but the complainant
is not ready to take the dowry articles as per
admit list.
9 That the applicant filed a case against the
complainant U/s 9 of HMA for restoration of
conjugal right which is pending before the
Hon’ble court of MS Vanita Goel, ADJ, KKD
Courts, Delhi which is fixed for 8.4.2010 for
further proceeding.
10 That the applicant belongs to respectable and
order issued against him.
11 That the applicant undertakes not to leave
court/concerned IO, if they are released on
anticipatory bail.
12 That the applicant is ready to join the
13 That the applicant is ready to abide by all the
terms and condition imposed by this Hon’ble
court.
14 That the applicant undertakes not to tamper the
prosecution witness till the pendency of this
case.
15 That the applicant is ready to furnish the
concerned.
Prayer:
to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants
thereby directing the concerned SHO/IO to
release the applicant in the event of his
arrest, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Dated:19.03.2010 Applicant
Through
(RAM KUAMR) ADV.

CH.NO. E-411,
KKD COURTS,DELHI-32
INRE:
PARMESHWAR DAYAL (BROTHER-IN-LAW/JETH)

R/O H.NO. 24A, BLOCK-G-3,
SONIA VIHAR, DELHI-110053
V e r s u s
THE STATE
FIR NO. NOT KNOWN

U/S 498A/406/34 IPC
P.S. CAW CELL
NAND NAGRI, DISTT.
NORTH-EAST, DELHI

HON’BLE MADAM,
family members.
2 That the brother of the applicant named Pradeep
Kumar got married with th Smt. Anita D/o Late
Sh. Jagdish Singh R/o H.No. 54, Gali No.4,

Garhi Maindu, Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053, with
the simple manner without performing the dowry
articles, in the presence of kith and keens and
friends of both the parties.
brother of the applicant to live in her
parental home and pressed to purchase the house
near house of her parents, but the brother of
the applicant is living in poor condition, due
to which he is living in rented accommodation
at the above noted case as he is not capable to
purchase a new house near the parental house of
complainant.
4 That on 10.03.2009 when the brother of the
applicant gone to his job, in the absence of
brother of the applicant the complainant namely
Smt. Anita left the company of the brother of
the applicant and before leaving her
informing the brother of the applicant.
5 That the brother of the applicant went to
parental home of the complainant to take back
the complainant, but the complainant did not
join the company of the brother of the

6 That the brother of the applicant sent to legal
notice u/s 9 of HMA to join the company of the
brother of the applicant but the complainant
did not join the company of the brother of the
applicant and filed a counter complaint U/s
498A/406/ IPC against the above noted applicant
before the CAW Cell, Nand Nagri, Distt. North
East, Delhi.
7 That the applicant as per direction /notice
brother of the applicant without any bills and
slips of the articles, thereafter the brother
of the applicant filed a admit list of the
dowry articles to the CAW Cell and as per
direction of concerned I.O., the brother of the
applicant ready to return the dowry articles as
per admit list, but the complainant is not

ready to take the dowry articles as per admit
list.
9 That the brother of the applicant filed a case
against the complainant U/s 9 of HMA for
restoration of conjugal right which is pending
before the Hon’ble court of MS Vanita Goel,
ADJ, KKD Courts, Delhi which is fixed for
8.4.2010 for further proceeding.
10 That the applicant belong to respectable and
court/concerned IO, if he is released on
anticipatory bail.

court.
case.
concerned.
Prayer:
anticipatory bail to the applicant thereby
applicants in the event of his arrest, in the
Delhi:
Through
(RAM KUAMR) ADV.

CH.NO. E-411,
KKD COURTS,DELHI-32
Note: Vakalatnama has already been filed jointly with
the bail application of Pradeep Kumar(husband)

INRE:
PUSHPA (SISTER-IN-LAW/NANAD)
W/O SH. SATPAL GAUTAM
R/O KHORA COLONY,
V e r s u s
THE STATE
FIR NO. NOT KNOWN

U/S 498A/406/34 IPC
P.S. CAW CELL
NAND NAGRI, DISTT.
NORTH-EAST, DELHI

HON’BLE MADAM,
family members.

complainant.

East, Delhi.

list.
order issued against her.
court/concerned IO, if She is released on
anticipatory bail.

court.
case.
concerned.
Prayer:
applicants in the event of her arrest, in the
Delhi:
Through
(RAM KUAMR) ADV.

CH.NO. E-411,
KKD COURTS,DELHI-32

INRE:
RAJBALA (SISTER-IN-LAW/NANAD)
W/O SH. SURAJ BHAN
R/O H.NO. 204, 4TH PUSTA,
DELHI-110094.
V e r s u s
THE STATE
FIR NO. NOT KNOWN

U/S 498A/406/34 IPC
P.S. CAW CELL
NAND NAGRI, DISTT.
NORTH-EAST, DELHI

HON’BLE MADAM,
family members.
complainant.

East, Delhi.

list.
10 That the applicant belongs to respectable and
order issued against her.
court/concerned IO, if she is released on
anticipatory bail.
court.
case.
concerned.
Prayer:
applicants in the event of her arrest, in the
Delhi:
Through
(RAM KUAMR) ADV.
CH.NO. E-411,
KKD COURTS,DELHI-32


INRE:
SATPAL (BROTHER-IN-LAW/NANDOI)
R/O KHORA COLONY,
V e r s u s
THE STATE
FIR NO. NOT KNOWN

U/S 498A/406/34 IPC
P.S. CAW CELL
NAND NAGRI, DISTT.
NORTH-EAST, DELHI

HON’BLE MADAM,
family members.
2 That the brother-in-law of the applicant named
Pradeep Kumar got married with th Smt. Anita

D/o Late Sh. Jagdish Singh R/o H.No. 54, Gali
No.4, Garhi Maindu, Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053,
with the simple manner without performing the
dowry articles, in the presence of kith and
keens and friends of both the parties.
brother-in-law of the applicant to live in her
near house of her parents, but the brother-in-
law of the applicant is living in poor
4 That on 10.03.2009 when the brother-in-law of
the applicant gone to his job, in the absence
of brother-in-law of the applicant the
of the brother-in-law of the applicant and
before leaving her matrimonial home she took
her entire gold and silver ornaments, costly
cloths, valuable articles and cash Rs. 10,000/-
without informing the brother-in-law of the
applicant.
5 That the brother-in-law of the applicant went
to parental home of the complainant to take

back the complainant, but the complainant did
not join the company of the brother-in-law of
the applicant without disclosing any reasonable
6 That the brother-in-law of the applicant sent
to legal notice u/s 9 of HMA to join the
company of the brother-in-law of the applicant
the brother-in-law of the applicant and filed a
counter complaint U/s 498A/406/ IPC against the
above noted applicant before the CAW Cell, Nand
Nagri, Distt. North East, Delhi.
brother-in-law of the applicant without any
bills and slips of the articles, thereafter the
brother-in-law of the applicant filed a admit
list of the dowry articles to the CAW Cell and
as per direction of concerned I.O., the

brother-in-law of the applicant ready to return
the dowry articles as per admit list, but the
complainant is not ready to take the dowry
articles as per admit list.
9 That the brother-in-law of the applicant filed
a case against the complainant U/s 9 of HMA
for restoration of conjugal right which is
Goel, ADJ, KKD Courts, Delhi which is fixed for
anticipatory bail.
court.
case.
concerned.
Prayer:
Delhi:
Through
(RAM KUAMR) ADV.

CH.NO. E-411,
KKD COURTS,DELHI-32


INRE:
SURAJ BHAN (BROTHER-IN-LAW/NANDOI)

R/O H.NO. 204, 4TH PUSTA,
DELHI-110094.
V e r s u s
THE STATE
FIR NO. NOT KNOWN

U/S 498A/406/34 IPC
P.S. CAW CELL
NAND NAGRI, DISTT.
NORTH-EAST, DELHI

HON’BLE MADAM,
family members.
2 That the brother-in-law of the applicant named
Pradeep Kumar got married with th Smt. Anita
D/o Late Sh. Jagdish Singh R/o H.No. 54, Gali
No.4, Garhi Maindu, Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053,
with the simple manner without performing the
dowry articles, in the presence of kith and
keens and friends of both the parties.
brother-in-law of the applicant to live in her
near house of her parents, but the brother-in-
law of the applicant is living in poor
4 That on 10.03.2009 when the brother-in-law of
the applicant gone to his job, in the absence
of brother-in-law of the applicant the
of the brother-in-law of the applicant and
before leaving her matrimonial home she took
her entire gold and silver ornaments, costly
cloths, valuable articles and cash Rs. 10,000/-
without informing the brother-in-law of the
applicant.
5 That the brother-in-law of the applicant went
to parental home of the complainant to take
back the complainant, but the complainant did
not join the company of the brother-in-law of
the applicant without disclosing any reasonable
6 That the brother-in-law of the applicant sent
to legal notice u/s 9 of HMA to join the
company of the brother-in-law of the applicant
the brother-in-law of the applicant and filed a
counter complaint U/s 498A/406/ IPC against the
above noted applicant before the CAW Cell, Nand
Nagri, Distt. North East, Delhi.
brother-in-law of the applicant without any
bills and slips of the articles, thereafter the
brother-in-law of the applicant filed a admit

list of the dowry articles to the CAW Cell and
as per direction of concerned I.O., the
brother-in-law of the applicant ready to return
the dowry articles as per admit list, but the
complainant is not ready to take the dowry
articles as per admit list.
9 That the brother-in-law of the applicant filed
a case against the complainant U/s 9 of HMA
for restoration of conjugal right which is
Goel, ADJ, KKD Courts, Delhi which is fixed for
anticipatory bail.
court.
case.
concerned.
Prayer:
Delhi:
Through
(RAM KUAMR) ADV.

CH.NO. E-411,
KKD COURTS,DELHI-32

I.D. No.
For Office Use
To,

DCP OFFICE
DISTT. NORTH EAST
SEELAMPUR, DELHI-53
Sir,
1 Name of applicant: BHUPINDER SINGH

S/O LATE SH. KARNAIL SINGH
R/O 27/109/1A, SHRI KRISHNA
GALI, JWALA NAGAR, SHAHDARA
DELHI-110032
A. concerned department: DCP OFFICE

DISTT. NORTH EAST
SEELAMPUR, DELHI-53
1 Supply to me the copy of statement dt.

19.06.2008 of Smt. Rajni Goswami W/o Sh. Satpal
Goswami R/o F-1/49, Sunder Nagri, Delhi-110093
in respect of matter vide complaint dt.
19.06.2008 which was given before concerned
officer, DCP Office, Distt. North-East, Delhi.
15th day of May 2010

A fee of Rs. 10/- has been paid by IPO No.

__________
Delhi:
Dated: Signature
BHUPINDER SINGH
DELHI-110032
I.D. No.
For Office Use
To,

P.S. NAND NAGRI
DISTT. NORTH EAST
P.S. NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93
Sir,
1 Name of applicant: BHUPINDER SINGH

DELHI-110032
A. concerned department: P.S. NAND NAGRI

DISTT. NORTH EAST
DELHI-93
1 Supply to me the copy of statement dt. 20.05.2008

vide DD No. 33A which was got registered on the
basis of 100 number call made by Sumit Goswami s/o
Sh. Satpal Goswami R/o F-1/49, Sunder Nagri,
Delhi-110093.
2 Supply to me a copy of statement/settlement dated
20.05.2001 of Rajni Goswami w/o Sh. Satpal Goswami
R/o F-1/49, Sunder Nagri, Delhi-110093 which was
written before and given to Sh. Lal Sahab, S.I.
P.S. Nand Nagri, Dehli-110093.
30th day of March 2010

A fee of Rs. 10/- has been paid by IPO No.

88E 328796
Delhi:
Dated: Signature
BHUPINDER SINGH
DELHI-110032
To,
The ACP,
P.S. SEELAMPUR,
Distt. NORTH East,
Delhi-110053.
Sub: Application for release the vehicle bearing

No. DL-5SW-8734
Sir,
1 That the applicant is the registered owner of
the above said vehicle which had been parked
at Jafrabad Road, Near Tentwala School,
Delhi.
2 That the said vehicle was lifted by the
police of P.S. Jafrabad, on 18.03.2010
between 9.00 PM as unclaimed vehicle.
3 That being the owner of the said vehicle, I
want to get the said vehicle released by your

authority and ready to pay the fine
whatsoever shall be imposed by you.
4 That I shall be fully responsible if any
other person claim regarding the ownership of
the said vehicle.
5 That the concerned authority shall be kept
harmless or shall be indemnified for all
losses, charges, expenses, litigation if any
occur.
It is therefore, most humbly requested that
kindly release the said vehicle to the
applicant/owner.
Yours truly,
Applicant
MOHD. REHAN
S/o Sh. ZULFIKAR HJUSSAIN ANSARI
R/o E-13, WELCOME, SEELAMPUR,
SHAHDARA, DELHI-110032
Delhi:
Dated: 18.03.2010
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTT. & SESSIONS JUDGE (DISTT.
NORTH-EAST) KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
ARJUN SINGH
S/O SH. KULDEEP SINGH
R/O A-84, GOKAL PURI,
DELHI-110094
V/S STATE
FIR NO. NOT KNOWN

U/S NOT KNOWN
P.S. GOKAL PURI
FIRST BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. FOR GRANT OF

ANTICIPATORY BAIL ON BEHALF OF THE ABOVE NOTED
APPLICANT NAMELY ARJUN SINGH
SIR,

the above noted address permanently.
2 That the some police officials has been
visiting to the house of applicant/accused at
odd hours, disclosing that he belongs to
Special staff of Delhi Police and they are
putting pressure over the family members of
applicant to send the applicant to Police
Station of P.S. Gokal puri without disclosing
any reason, while the applicant has nothing
to do with the any offence/crime.
4 That the above noted applicant has much
apprehension that the police may arrest the
applicant in any false case.
5 That the applicant is not a previous convict,
having clean antecedents.
investigation as and when required by the
I.O./SHO concerned.
8 That the above noted applicant belongs to

poor but respectable family.
9 That the above noted applicant ready to abide
10 That the above noted applicant is ready to
furnish the reliable and sound surety to the
entire satisfaction of this Hon’ble
court/concerned IO/SHO.
Prayer:

circumstances, it is therefore most respectfully
prayed that this Hon’ble court may kindly be
pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the
applicant and direct the concerned IO/SHO to
release the applicant in the event of his arrest,
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
(A.ALI KHAN)
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTT. & SESSION JUDGE (DISTT.
NORTH EAST) KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S MOHD. ALI
FIR NO. 93/2010
U/S 326 IPC
P.S. NEW USMAN PUR
IN J.C. 17.03.2010
3RD APPLCIATION U/S 439 CR.P.C. FOR GRANT OF BAIL

ON BEHALF OF THE ABOVE NAMED APPLICANT/ACCUSED PERSON
SIR,
police of P.S. NEW USMAN PUR on instance of the
complainant and sent to J.C. on 17.03.2010
since then he is in custody.


4 That the accused is suffering from polio in his

right leg and he is facing a lot of problems in
Jail and he is he needy for care.
5 That the first bail application has been

dismissed on 29.03.2010 by this Hon’ble court
AND second bail application was dismissed on
5.4.2010, hence this application.
6 That a attack came over the father of accused

due to which he is seriously ill and there is
no person to look after him.

false case.


India.
11 That the applicant/accused is an handicapped

person, having wife and minor children and he
is only earning member of his family and entire
family depend upon him and in his absence his
entire family has come under the verge of
starvation.

Prayer:
Delhi:
(IN J.C.)
Through
(MAHENDER KUMAR &

HARI SHANKAR) ADV.
INRE:
STATE V/S RAI SINGH
S/O LATE SH. SULTAN SINGH
R/O VILALGE KUWAIT GANJ,
P.S. MAHARORA, DISTT. ETAH,UP
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:
407, SANGAM VIHAR,
NEW DELHI-110044
FIR NO. 47/2010
U/S 380/457 IPC
P.S. MADHU VIHAR
IN J.C. 22.02.2010
SIR,

police of P.S. MADHU VIHAR on instance of the


shown is planted by the polce.
4 That the accused Raju has already been released

on bail as per order dt. 17.03.2010 passed by

false case.


India.
9 That having wife and minor children and he is

only earning member of his family and entire
family depend upon him and in his absence his
entire family has come under the verge of
starvation.

Prayer:
Delhi:
(IN J.C.)
Through
(KANHI LAL ) ADV.

INRE:
ICICI V/S VED PRAKASH

U/S 138 N.I.ACT
C.C. NO.
D.O.H.__________

CR.P.C. INITIATED AGAINST THE APPLICANT/ACCUSED

_____________.

hearing because on 08.04.2009 a settlement was
arrived between the complainant and accused in
which it was settled that Rs. 15,000/- will be
paid by the accused to the complainant as full
and final settlement, due to which the accused
paid Rs. 8,000/- to the bank as part payment in
this connection a settlement letter was also
signed by the accused and bank/complainant and
the accused presented the said settlement
before this Hon’ble court on 09.04.2009, but on
that day the court was on leave.
9 That on 15.04.2009 the accused further
deposited Rs. 5500/- to the executive of ICICI
Bank named Satpal who told to the accused that
there is no need to appear before this Hon’ble
court, we have settled the matter remaining
amount of Rs. 1500/- pay as early as possible.
10 That the accused was in the impression of
Executive of ICICI Bank due to which he could
not appear before this Hon’ble court, but when
he had received the court notice then he came
to know that due to non-appearance proceeding
U/s 82 Cr.P.C. has been initiated against him.
11 That consequently the accused contacted his
counsel then the counsel for accused inspected
the case file then it was revealed that
proceeding U/s 82 Cr.P.C. has been initiated
against the accused, but prior to said notice,
the accused had not received any notice or
summon regarding the hearing, while the
applicant/accused is ready to pay the remaining
amount of Rs. 1500/-, the applicant/accused is
a Government servant and he is victim of
circumstances.

hearing in future.

injuries.

future.
Hon’ble court.
Prayer:
Delhi
THROUGH
counsel
(DEEPAK KUMAR)
I.D. No.
For Office Use
To,
DCP OFFICE
DISTT. NORTH EAST
SEELAMPUR, DELHI-53
Sir,
1 Name of applicant: PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN

S/O LATE SH. BHUKAN LAL JAIN
R/O M-30, B-1, DILSHAD GARDEN
DELHI-110095
DCP OFFICE
DISTT. NORTH EAST
SEELAMPUR, DELHI-53
1 Tell me about that what action has been taken

by you on the application along with
evidence/real facts dt. 5.3.2010 given by the
applicant in connection of FIR No. 19/2010,
P.S. M.S. Park, U/s 498A/304-B IPC to
Commissioner of Delhi Police, SHO P.S. M.S.
Park. (annexure is being annexed with the kind
perusal of this authority)
2 Reply me about each para of the said
application.
3 Whether verification of all annexure A to H
filed with the said complaint has been done or
not?
4 Whether the IO of this case, Inspector Jaiveer
Singh has become part of investigation of the
above noted case, if yes please give the
status. If not, tell me reason.
31st day of March 2010

Delhi:
Dated: Signature
PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN

DELHI-110095
I.D. No.
For Office Use
To,
IHBAS
JHILMIL DELHI-110095
Sir,

DELHI-110095
IHBAS
JHILMIL DELHI-110095
1 Supply me the treatment papers of patient Ms.

Anshu Singh (CRF No. 2005-08-16815)& tell me
about the nature of disease (if she was
suffering from depression then tell me
category of depression) category of dece and
duration of treatment.
2 Supply me the treatment papers of patient Sh.
Girendra Singh S/o Late Malkhan Singh (CRF No.
/ Registration No. 05-8-15440 & tell me about
the nature of disease and duration of
treatment.
3 Supply me the treatment papers of patient MS.
Anita Singh W/o Sh. Girendra Singh,
CRF/Registration No. 05-8-15429 & tell me about
the nature of disease and duration of
treatment.
4 Whether any psychiatry counseling was done in
respect of diseases/depression of above named
patients with the patients? if yes, tell me
reason of diseases/depression?

Delhi:
Dated: Signature
PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN

DELHI-110095
I.D. No.
For Office Use
To,
TLM COMMUNITY HOSPITAL,
TAHIR PUR ROAD NO.69,
NAND NAGRI, DELHI-110093
Sir,

DELHI-110095
TLM COMMUNITY HOSPITAL,
TAHIR PUR ROAD NO.69,
NAND NAGRI, DELHI-110093

Anshu Singh, Regn.No. NLP-77957 DT. 17.04.2007.
2 Tell me duration of treatment of above named
patient and also tell me the cause and nature of
diseases.

Delhi:
Dated: Signature
PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN

DELHI-110095
I.D. No.
For Office Use
To,
DELHI POLICE COMMISSIONER,
DELHI POLICE HEAD QUARTER
ITO, NEW DELHI-110002
Sir,
1 Name of applicant: Vijay Kumar

(Head Constable)
Belt No. 518,security
PIS no. 28821616
Ex. Pm cell, main security
Line, Vinay Marg,
DELHI POLICE COMMISSIONER,

Anshu Singh, Regn.No. NLP-77957 DT. 17.04.2007.
2 Tell me duration of treatment of above named
patient and also tell me the cause and nature of
diseases.

Delhi:
Dated: Signature
PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN

DELHI-110095
I.D. No.
For Office Use
To,
Delhi Police
MSO BUILDING
Sir,
1 That The applicant is serving in Delhi Police

since 8.3.1982 and was promoted as Head
Constable on 6.6.1991, what are the reason that
the applicant is not promoted further?
2 How many police officer are promoted in
February 2009.
3 What is the status of the applicant that why he
is not promoted?
4 Whether any ACR is there if application is not
promoted.
Applicant
Vijay Kumar
(Head Constable)
Belt No. 518,security
PIS no. 28821616
Ex. Pm cell, main security
Line, Vinay Marg,
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR LD. MM KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S YAMIN & OTHERS
FIR NO. 36/2010
P.S. VIVEK VIHAR
U/S 395/397 IPC
ACCUSED PRODUCED ON
17.03.2010
ACCUSED IN J.C. IN
GHAZIABAD, JAIL.
S
APPLICATION FOR CONDUCT THE TIP PROCEEDING
FOR ACCUSED NAMEDLY YAMEEN S/O MAKSOOD R/O
LONI, P.S. LONI, GHAZIABAD, U.P.
SIR,
1 That the accused person was produced before
this Hon’ble court on 17.03.2010 and now he
is judicial custody in Ghaziabad, Jail, U.P.
2 That the accused wants that his TIP
proceeding be conducted in this case as he is
totally innocent person and has been falsely
implicated in the above noted case.
Prayer:
allow this application and direction be given
to concerned IO to conduct TIP proceeding of
accused in this case, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
through
Counsel
Note: Counsel engaged by Rafique S/o Masood R/o
Loni, Ghaziabd, U.P. who is the brother of accused,
memo of appearance is also being annexed herewith.
IN THE COURT OF MS SUJATA KOHLI JUDGE MACT KKD COURTS,
DELHI
INRE:
DEEPAK KUMAR V/S SHO NAND NAGRI
N.D.O.H. 21.05.2010
APPLICATION FOR PREPONEMENT OF DATE ON THE
APPLICATION OF RELEASE THE VEHICLE OF THE
APPLICANT MOHD. HASIM
SIR,
1 That on the basis of the order of this
Hon’ble court, the applicant moved an
application before the Ld. MM Ms. Shivali
Sharma for deposit Rs. 50,000/- and on
5.3.2010, the applicant deposited Rs.
50,000/- in the Hon’ble court of Ms. Shivali
Sharma, LD. MM KKD Courts, Delhi.
2 That an application for release the vehicle
has been moved by the applicant before this
Hon’ble court and this Hon’ble court has
directed the applicant to file the certified
copy of the order dt. 5.3.2010 of Hon’ble
court of MS. Shivali Sharma, MM which the
applicant could not file on last date of
hearing i.e. on 16.03.2010 and this Hon’ble
adjourned the hearing on the application on
date fixed i.e. 21.05.2010.
3 That the applicant now has obtained the
certified copy of the order of Ld. MM and the

vehicle of applicant is lying in the Police
station Nand Nagri, Delhi.
Prayer:
that the date on the application for the release the
vehicle may kindly be preponed and the vehicle of
the applicant may kindly be released to the
applicant, in this case, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DUTY MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S BADSHAH

FIR NO. 176/2009
U/S 457/380/411/34 IPC
P.S. M.S. PARK
ACQUITTAL ON 15.04.2010
APPLICATION FOR CALLING THE REPORT FROM JAIL

SUPERINTENDENT TIHAR, NEW DELHI AS TO WHY THE
APPLICANT/ACCUSED HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED SO FAR?
SIR,
1 That in the aforesaid case bail bond has

been accepted by this Hon’ble court for
accused on 07.04.2010 and also release
warrant has been sent to Jail Superintendent,
Tihar, New Delhi on same day, but the
applicant/accused has not been released from
Tihar Jail so far.
Prayer:
it is therefore most respectfully prayed that
direct the jail superintendent Tihar, New
Delhi to release the applicant/accused from
Tihar jail and report may also be called as
to why the applicant/accused has not been yet
released from Tihar Jail, New Delhi, in this
Delhi:
Dated: 08.04.2010 Applicant/ACCUSED
IN J.C.
THROUGH
COUNSEL
(D.R.Singh)
To,
The President,
Shahdara Bar Association,
KKD Court Complex,
Delhi-110032:
Sub: Objection for not displaying the name of the

applicant in the allotment chamber list displayed on
17.03.2010.
Sir,
1 That I have been practicing regularly in KKD

Court, Delhi since 16.11.2007, since then I am
member of Shahdara, Bar Association.
2 That I am enrolled from Bar Counsel of U.P.
bearing No. 5838/2000, while transfer
proceeding of Enrolled in Bar Counsel of Delhi
is pending.
3 That I have already deposited documents as

required.
4 That now I came to know after seeing the

Chamber allotment list in which my name has not
been mentioned.
5 That I am filing this objection before you, I

was not allotted any chamber/seat in KKD
Courts, Delhi or any other in Delhi till date.
I, therefore, request you to endorse my

name in the chamber allotment list.
Thanking You,
Applicant
A.ALI KHAN
Dated: 22.03.2010
To,
The Secretary
Shahdara Bar Association
Delhi-110032.
SUB: OBJECTION FOR THE ALLOTMENT OF CHAMBER
Sir,
1 That I am the member of SBA bearing No. 1085

since 18.12.2004 and am operating from seat No.
L-19, Ground Floor, KKD Courts, Delhi.
2 That I have been continuously practicing herein
and handling over 200 matters in this court.
3 That I am the regular sitting members of this

Shahdara Bar Association, operating from the
said seat.
4 That I am shocked to see the list displayed for

chambers that those members who have obtained
the membership in the year 2008, have also been
allotted chambers while I have been deprived of
the same. I am well entitled for the allotment
of a chamber as my membership is of the year
2004.
It is therefore, requested that my seniority

in the association should be counted and I
should be allotted a chamber.
Thanking You.
Yours truly,
K.C. Dubey
(Advocate)
L-19, Ground Floor,
KKD Courts, Delhi-110032
Mobile No. 9810445502
Enclosure: Copy of Election Committee receipt fro

2006-2007 dt. 5.5.2006
Copy of declaration dt. 5.2.2007
To,
The President,
KKD Court Complex,
Delhi-110032:
Sub: Objection for not displaying the name of the

applicant in the allotment chamber list displayed on
17.03.2010.
Sir,
1 That I have been practicing regularly in KKD

Court, Delhi since 04.09.2004, since then I am
member of Shahdara, Bar Association.
2 That I am enrolled from Bar Counsel of U.P.
bearing No. 3339/2000, while due to some
problems, financial crises, and illness I could
not come in transfer proceeding of my
enrolment in D.B.A.
3 That I have already deposited documents as
required.
4 That now I came to know after seeing the
Chamber allotment list in which my name has not
been mentioned.
5 That I am filing this objection before you, I
was not allotted any chamber/seat in KKD
Courts, Delhi or any other in Delhi till date.
I, therefore, request you to endorse my

name in the chamber allotment list.
Thanking You,
Applicant
JAI PAL
Advocate
Dated: 23.03.2010
IN THE COURT OF MS SUCHI SHAHMIRI M.M. KKD COURTS,
DELHI
INRE:
ASHAWAL V/S BHUMIWAL
C.C. NO. 212/2009
U/S 12 PWDV ACT
D.O.H. 22.03.2010
A F F I D A V I T
I, ASHAWAL W/O SH. BHUMIWAL R/O B-1282, JAHANGIR PURI,

DELHI-110033, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:
1 That I am the petitioner in the above noted case.
2 That I approached to house of respondent named
Bhumiwal alongwith Dasti Summon for him issued by
the Hon’ble court, where the mother of respondent
named Smt. Sushila W/o lal Singh met, and I got
received Dasti Summon on behalf of respondent from
his mother.
Deponent
Verification:
Verified at Delhi on this 22nd day of March, 2010

Deponent
DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S MOHD. PARVEZ
FIR NO.04/2007
U/S 323/341/506/34 IOPC
P.S.SEELAMPUR
N.D.O.H. 06.12.2010
APPLICATION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF SURETY BOND ON BEHALF OF

SURETY NAMED BABLOO S/O MANJOOR KHAN FOR ACCUSED MOHD.
PARVEZ
HON’BLE SIR,

this Hon’ble court and was fixed for
06.12.2010.
MOHD. PARVEZ and now he is unable to produce
the accused before this Hon’ble court in
future, as the accused is out of control from
the reach of surety due to which the accused is
being produced before this Hon’ble court by the
surety named above, therefore the
applicant/surety wants that his surety bond be
cancelled and he be discharged from his
liabilities.
Prayer:
it is therefore most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased cancel the
surety bond applicant/surety and surety be
discharged from his liabilities, in the interest
of justice.
Delhi
Dated: 16.04.2010 APPLICANT/SURETY
(BABLOO)
through
Counsel

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S JUMMA ETC.
FIR NO. 372/2004
U/S 399/402/120-B/34 IPC
P.S. BHAJANPURA
N.D.O.H. 26.03.2010
IN J.C. 23.02.2010

OF THE ABOVE NAMED APPLICANT/ACCUSED NAMED ARIF @ JAVED
S/O SH. YUNUS
SIR,

police of P.S. NEW ASHOK NAGAR and sent to J.C.
on ________________ since then he is in
custody.



false case.



India.

Prayer:

Delhi:

(IN J.C.)
Through
(AMAR NATH & M.A.

ANSARI) ADV.

DELHI
INRE:
FIR NO. 372/2004
U/S 399/402/120-B/34 IPC
P.S. BHAJANPURA
N.D.O.H. 26.03.2010
IN J.C. 23.02.2010

OF THE ABOVE NAMED APPLICANT/ACCUSED NAMED ARIF @ JAVED
S/O SH. YUNUS
SIR,
hearing because unfortunately he hatched up in
traffic jam and when he approached to court his
name had been called and due to non-appearance
NBW had been issued against him, consequently
on same day an application for cancellation of
NBW had been moved before this Hon’ble court
but on the fixed date he again could not appear
before this Hon’ble court in time due to which
the said application was dismissed, after that
the accused himself appeared before this
Hon’ble court then the accused was sent to J.C.
on 23.02.2010, since then he is in J.C.
3 That the absence of the applicant/accused was
above said reason.
date of hearing and will be more careful in
future.
5 That there are no person in house to lookafter
his wife (who is ill), children and other
family members.
Prayer:

Delhi:
THROUGH COUNSEL
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K. GULIA MM KKD COURTS

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S DHIRAJ SURI

FIR NO. 224/2004
U/S 294/34 IPC
P.S. KRISHNA NAGAR
D.O.H. 23.03.2010
SAPPLICATION FOR SEEKING TIME TO PRODUCE THE ACCUSED ON

BEHALF OF SURETY NAMED NEERAJ SINGH
HON’BLE SIR,

22.03.2010.
2 That the applicant stood surety for
accused DHIRAJ SURI in this case, but due
to non-appearance NBW had been issued
against the accused and a notice U/s 446
Cr.P.C. was also issued against the
surety.
3 That now the surety is unable to produce

the accused before this Hon’ble court
because he is ill due to which he on bed
rest, while the surety/applicant undertake
to produce the accused when he got well,
Prayer:
cancel the notice u/s 446 cr.p.c. issued
against the APPLICANT/SURETY and time be
given to surety to produce the accused, in
Delhi
THROUGH
(SEEMA DOGRA) ADV.

IN THE COURT OF MS ______________________MM KKD COURTS,
DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S ________________

CHALLAN NO.
VEHICLE NO.
U/S
CIRCLE NO.
COURT DATE:
APPLICATION FOR DISPOSAL OF CHALLAN

SIR,
1 That the above challan is pending before this

Hon’ble court and was fixed for ______________.
2 That the applicant is the rightful owner/DRIVER

of the said vehicle, and the applicant accept
his guilty and ready to pay the fine whatsoever
shall be imposed upon him therefore he wants
that said challan be heard today and same may
be disposed off, hence this application.
prayer:

this application, said challan be disposed off
today by hearing in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Dated: Applicant
Through
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH PANDIT ACMM KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S NAVEEN
S/O
FIR NO. 339/2009
U/S 356/379/34 IPC
P.S. ANAND VIHAR
D.O.H. 22.03.2010
IN J.C.

OF THE ABOVE NAMED APPLICANT/ACCUSED
SIR,

police of P.S. ANAND VIHAR and sent to J.C. on
________________ since then he is in custody.


false case.



India.

Prayer:

Delhi:

(IN J.C.)
Through
J.P.BANSAL
Adv.
INRE:
STATE V/S YAMEEN ETC.

FIR NO. 41/2008
U/S 323/341/506/34 IPC
& 25/54/59 A.ACT
P.S. NAND NAGRI
APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION TO JAIL

SUPERINTENTEND TIHAR, NEW DELHI TO BE
RELEASED THE ACCUSED NAMELY KISHAN S/O SH.
SUNDER LAL FROM JUDICIAL CUSTODY.
SIR,
1 That in the above noted case the accused above

named is on bail, while previously the accused
in this case was called on production warrant
due to which the accused was not released in
this case from Tihar Jail, therefore the
applicant that direction be given to Jail
Superintendent to be released the accused in
the above noted case, hence this application.
Prayer:
to pass an order thereby directing the Jail
Superintendent Tihar, New Delhi to be
released in this case because the accused is
on bail in this case, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
(VIJAY RANA) ADV.
INRE:
ICICI V/S VED PRAKASH

U/S 138 N.I.ACT
C.C. NO.927/2007
D.O.H.23.03.2010

CR.P.C. INITIATED AGAINST THE APPLICANT/ACCUSED

23.03.2010.
hearing because on 08.04.2009 a settlement
was arrived between the complainant and
accused in which it was settled that Rs.
15,000/- will be paid by the accused to the
complainant as full and final settlement, due
to which the accused paid Rs. 8,000/- to the
bank as part payment in this connection a
settlement letter was also signed by the
accused and bank/complainant and the accused
presented the said settlement before this
Hon’ble court on 09.04.2009, but on that day
the court was on leave.
3 That on 15.04.2009 the accused further
deposited Rs. 5500/- to the executive of
ICICI Bank named Satpal who told to the
accused that there is no need to appear
before the Hon’ble court, we have already
settled the matter, and we will withdraw the
case from the Hon’ble court on next date,
remaining amount of Rs. 1500/- pay as early
as possible.
4 That the accused was in the impression of
Executive of ICICI Bank as he thought that
matter has been withdrawn, due to which he
could not appear before this Hon’ble court,
but when he had received a demand legal
notice dt. 19.02.2010 from the ICICI Bank,
then he contacted his counsel and when the
counsel for the accused inspected the case
file then it was revealed that case has not
been withdrawn despite of settlement and
assurance between the accused and complainant
and due to non-appearance proceeding U/s 82
Cr.P.C. has been initiated against him, while
prior to said notice, the accused had not
received any notice or summon or any warrant
regarding the hearing and also the accused
had no knowledge about proceeding of section
82 Cr.P.C. initiated against him, also the
surety of the accused had no knowledge about
any proceeding like above, while the
applicant/accused is ready to pay the
remaining amount of Rs. 1500/-.
5 That the applicant/accused is a Government
servant and he is victim of circumstances
while the absence of the applicant/ accused
was neither intentional nor willful but due
to above said reason and he undertakes to
appear before this Hon’ble court on every
date of hearing in future.
injuries.
future.
Prayer:

Delhi
Dated: ACCUSED/APPLICANT
THROUGH
Counsel
(DEEPAK KUMAR)
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIVEK KUMAR GULIA, MM KKD COURTS,
DELHI
INRE
STATE V/S HARI SHYAM MISHRA
FIR NO. 250/2000
U/S 394 IPC
P.S. GANDHI NAGAR
D.O.H. 23.03.2010
APPLICATION FOR SEEKING TIME TO DEPOSIT THE SURETY

AMOUNT ON BEHALF OF SURETY NAMED RAVINDER KUMAR
MALIK S/O LATE SH. DWARKA DASS
SIR,
this Hon’ble court and fixed for today.
2 That the applicant stood surety in this case
for accused Hari Shyam Mishra but he is not
appear before this Hon’ble court also the
applicant is not in position to produce the
accused.
3 That now the applicant is ready to pay the
surety amount but today he is unable to deposit
the same due to his financial problems, he
undertake to deposit the surety amount on next
date of hearing, as the accused is to come on
01.04.2010 in another case, hence this
application.
Prayer:
this application and time be given to surety to be
deposited the surety amount, in this case, in the
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIVEK KUMAR GULIA, MM KKD COURTS,
DELHI
INRE
STATE V/S HARI SHAYAM MISHRA
FIR NO.
U/S 25 A.Act
P.S. GANDHI NAGAR
D.O.H. 23.03.2010
APPLICATION FOR SEEKING TIME TO DEPOSIT THE SURETY

AMOUNT ON BEHALF OF SURETY NAMED BAWAN WATI W/O
SH. HARI SHYAM MISHRA
SIR,
Hon’ble court and fixed for today.
2 That the applicant stood surety in this case for
accused Hari Shyam Mishra who is husband of
surety.
3 That on last date the applicant/surety sought time
from this Hon’ble court for today to be produced
the accused but the applicant is not in position
to produce the accused therefore she again seeks
times to be produced the surety on 01.04.2010.
4 That the applicant/surety undertake to produce the
accused, if she fails, then she is ready to pay
the surety amount before this Hon’ble court, hence
this application.
Prayer:
this application and time be given to surety to be
deposited the surety amount, in this case, in the
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF MS SUNITA GUPTA DISTT. JUDGE, KKD

COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
JAI PRAKASH
S/O SH. NIRAJAN SINGH
R/O F-52, GALI NO.6,
SADATPUR EXTN. KARAWAL NAGAR,
DELHI-110094.
V E R S U S
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
FIR NO. NOT KNWON

U/S NOT KNOWN
P.S. KHAJOORI KHAS
FIRST BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. ON

BEHALF OF ABOVE NOTED APPLICATION FOR GRANT
OF ANTICPATORY BAIL
SIR,
the above noted address along with his other
family members.
2 That the police officers of P.S. Khajoori
Khas along with Haridat Kandpal visited the
house of applicant in odd hours and search
the applicant and compel to the parents of
applicant to appear along with applicant in
police station Khajoori Khas, otherwise the
police officer threatened to the parents of
the applicant saying that “I SHALL INVOLVE
HIM IN FALSE CRIMINAL CASE”.
3 That the above noted applicant got married
with Miss. Rekha D/o Sh. Haridat Kandpal R/o
H.No. A-7/32, A-Block, Dayalpur, Delhi-110094
on 22.02.2010 at Aryua Samaj Mandir, at 2164,
Jamuna Bazaar, Delhi with Hindu Vedic Rites.
4 That after solemnization of marriage, the
applicant is living with his wife Mrs. Rekha,
but the parents of Mrs. Rekha was not happy
regarding this marriage.

5 That Mrs. Rekhas sent a application regarding
the said marriage to the Delhi Police
Commissioner, ITO, Delhi and DCP Distt.
North-East, Seelampur, Delhi and SHO, P.S.
Khajoori Khas, Delhi on 06.03.2010,but the
police officials without proper
investigation/enquiry tortured the parents of
the above noted applicant.
6 That the above noted applicants has much
apprehension that police officials of P.S.
Khajoori Khas with collusion of parents of
Mrs. Rekha can arrest the applicant at any
time without any reason in any false criminal
case.
7 That the above noted applicant having good
reputation in the society, without criminal
record.
8 That no other case is pending against the
above noted applicant and no further adverse
order was issued against the applicant by any
court of law.
9 That the applicant belongs to very poor and
respectable family.
10 That the applicant undertakes to join the
investigation as when directed by this

Hon’ble court/concerned SHO, if any
case/complaint is found pending against him.
India without prior permission of this
Hon’ble court/concerned SHO/IO, if any
complaint/case is found pending against him.
Prayer:
to grant anticipatory to the applicant and
direct the concerned SHO/IO to release the
applicant in this case in the event of his
arrest, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:

Through
(RAM KUMAR)
Advocate
E-411, KKD Courts,
Delhi-32
IN RE:
STATE V/S PRAVEEN KUMAR

FIR NO. 345/2009
U/S 279/337 IPC
P.S. NEW USMAN PUR
L.D.O.H. 15.03.2010
N.D.O.H. 23.07.2010
APPLICATION FOR SEEKIGN THE PERMISSIION TO

TRANSFER THE VEHICLE BEARING NO. DL-1VA-3138 IN
THE NAME OF SUPERDAR/GPA HOLDER NAMELY AFLATOON
AND CANCELLED THE ENDORSEMENT FROM R.C.
HON’BLE MADAM,
It IS most respectfully submitted as under:
1 That the applicant/superdar has purchased the

said vehicle No. DL-1VA-3130 from its
registered owner Sh. Jagdish Parshad.
2 That as the applicant has filed superdginam and
General Power of Attorney on 4.11.2009.
Prayer: It is therefore, most respectfully pray to

your Honour that the permission for transfer in the
name of superdar/GPA Holder may kindly be allowed
and endorsement may kindly be cancelled from RC and
ROBKAR may also be issued, in this case, in the
Delhi:
Through
Counsel

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S DEVENDER KUMAR
FIR NO. 124/2009
U/S 420/506/IPC
P.S.KARAWAL NAGAR
D.O.D. 25.01.2010
APPLICATION FOR RELEASING THE ORIGINAL R.C. OF VEHCILE

BEARING NO. DL-13S-D-1373 ON BEHALF OF THE SURETY
NAMELY VIJENDER SINGH S/O SH. LAL RAM

DEVENDER KUMAR in this case which has been quashed
by the Honh’ble High Court of Delhi on 25.01.2010.
2 That at the time of given surety for accused
person, the Hon’ble court detained the original RC
of the said vehicle kept in court.
3 That as the case has been decided, hence there is
no need of RC in this case hence the applicant
want to get the same released by this Hon’ble
court in his favour.
Prayer:

released the original RC in favour of surety in
this case, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
THROUGH
(RAM KUMAR) ADV.
IN THE COURT OF SH MS SUCHI SHAHMIRI MM KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S GOPAL SHARMA & OTHERS

FIR NO. 205/2003
U/S 498A/406/34 IPC
P.S. BHAJANPURA
APPLCIATION FOR DIRECTION TO THE POLICE NO TO

HARASS AND HUMILIATE THE APPLICATION
SIR,
1 That the applicant is the owner of property
bearing No. E-109, third Floor, Jhilmil
Colony, Delhi.
2 That the applicant is the elder brother of
accused named Gopal who is not residing with
me, but the police has been visiting to my
house at odd hours and they are investigating
from me about accused Gopal while the applicant
has nothing to do with the said Gopal, but the
police officials of P.S. Bhajanpura unnecessary
harassing and humiliating the applicant without
any reason and threatened the applicant to
attach the property of applicant.
Prayer:
this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to give
direction to police of P.S. Bhajanpura not to
harass and humiliate the applicant in this case
and also direction be given to police not to go to
the house of applicant, in this case, in the
Delhi:
(SATISH SHARMA)
Through
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOKESH SHARMA ACMM KKD COURTS,
DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S ROHTASH
S/O SH. FAGGU LAL
FIR NO. 65/2009
U/S 323/341/506/
325/394/397/34 IPC
P.S. SHAHDARA
IN J.C. 20.01.2010
APPLCIATION FOR SEEKING CORRECTION IN THE ORDER DT.

16.03.2010 ON THE BAIL APPLCIATION OF THE
APPLCIANT/ACCUSED
SIR,
1 That the bail application of the applicant had
been moved before this Hon’ble court which was
put before this Hon’ble court on 16.03.2010 and
the applicant has been admitted on bail in the
above noted case, but inadvertently instead of
65/2009, it was typed in the bail application
65/2010 instead of 65/2009 and due to that
reason the applicant seeking correction in the
order dt. 16.03.2010.
Prayer:
Under these facts and circumstances, it

is therefore, most respectfully prayed that
FIR No. mentioned in the order as well as in
the bail application may kindly be changed
from 65/2010 to 65/2009, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
(IN J.C.)
Through
(RAJKUMKAR TOMAR) ADV.
I.D. No.
For Office Use
To,

NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION
(NSIC)
OKHLA (OPPO. KALKAJI MANDIR)
NEW DELHI
Sir,
1 Name of applicant: G.L. BHARDWAJ (ADVOCATE)

R/O 1/10430, GALI NO.9,
MOHAN PARK, NAVEEN SHAHDARA,
WEST ROHTASH NAGAR
DELHI-110032
NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES
CORPORATION(NSIC)
OKHLA (OPPO. KALKAJI MANDIR)
NEW DELHI
1 Supply to me the Copy of cancellation of

registration certificate of M/s S.R.
Enterprises, Sarvodaya Basti, Bikaner,
Rajasthan with its head office at Gali
Matawali, Teliwara, Delhi.
10th day of April 2010

Delhi:
Dated: Signature
G.L. BHARDWAJ (ADVOCATE)

R/O 1/10430, GALI NO.9,
MOHAN PARK, NAVEEN SHAHDARA,
WEST ROHTASH NAGAR
DELHI-110032
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH HON’BLE A.S.J. KKD
COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S DEENANATH @ RAJKUMAR

S/O SH. SHIV CHAUDHARY
R/O VILLAGE KHATIBA
P.S. ITARI
DISTT. BAKSAR, BIHAR
P.S. KHAJOORI KHAS
FIR NO. 32/2009

U/S 363/376/34 IPC
IN J.C. SINCE:
26.02.2009
FIRST BAIL APPLICATION U/S 439 CR.P.C.
ON BEHALF OF THE ABOVE NOTED ACCUSED PERSONS
SIR,
1 That the above noted accused person has been
falsely implicated by the complainant on
instigation of her parents and he is facing the
judicial custody since 26.02.2009.
2 That the prosecutrix and public witnesses have
also been examined by this Hon’ble court. At
the time of chief and cross examination as well

as prosecutrix major contradiction came into
light.
3 That as per prosecution story, alleged
allegation against the above noted accused
person, the prosecutrix kidnapped by the
accused person on 09.10.2008 and the
prosecutrix searched by her parents on
02.11.2008, but the parents of prosecutrix did
not give any complaint regarding the missing/
kidnapping of his daughter till 25 days of her
missing and the prosecutrix gave her statement
before police station on 11.02.2009, the police
of P.S. Khajoori Khas registered the case with
the collusion of prosecutrix and her parents on
11.02.2009.
4 That the police of P.S. Khajoori Khas conducted
the medical examination of prosecutrix on
18.11.2008 and FIR was lodged on 11.02.2009,
the FIR is delay upto 4 and half month, after
missing/kidnapping the prosecutrix.
5 That the above noted accused person was the
tenant of the parents of the complainant who
resided in the premises of the complainant till
three years continuously.

6 That the accused person residing as a family
member in the premises of the parents of the
complainant and the accused person looked the
complainant like his own sister. During the
period of tenancy the parents of the
complainant borrowed a sum Rs. 80,000/- from
the accused person, after some passing some
months, the accused persons demanded the said
amount then there was hot taking exchanged
between the accused person and complainant.
7 That the father of the complainant threatened
the above noted accused person by saying that
“IF YOU DEMNAD MONEY AGAIN, THEN I SHALL
IMPLICATE YOU(ACCUSED) IN FALSE CASE, the
accused person given a complaint to the police
commissioner, DCP Seelampur and SHO, Khajoori
Khas on 06.10.2008 by registered post regarding
the apprehension that the applicant can be
implicated in any false criminal case.
8 That the parents of the complainant falsely
implicated the accused in false case vide FIR
No. 225/2008 U/s 363, P.S. Khajoori Khas.
9 That the concerned I.O. Sh. Rajeshwar Singh
produced the complainant namely Kumari Sushma
before the Hon’ble MM, the LINK MM recorded
the statement of prosecutrix U/s 164 Cr.P.C.,

thereafter the accused person was released on
regular bail by passing the order of Sh. A.S.
Aggarwal.
10 That the above noted accused person vacated the
premises of the parents of the complainant.
11 That the complainant in collusion of her
parents made false and fabricated story and
again registered the case agaist the above
noted accused person vide FIR No. 32/2009 U/s
363/376/34 IPC, P.S. Khajoori Khas.
12 That the complainant alleged the allegation
against the above noted accused person on
4.10.2008 and statement given to the police
officials of P.S. Khajoori khas on 11.02.2009
after passing the 4-1/2 months, thereafter the
police of P.S. Khajoori Khas without any proper
investigation registered a case against the
above noted accused person u/s 363/376/34 IPC.
13 That the accused person never committed any
offence against the complainant, all the
allegation leveled by the complainant or her
parents are totally false, frivolous and
concocted which are a bunch of lies and far
from truth, but just only to harass and
humiliate the accused.

14 That the accused person is an innocent person
and he is married having two children.
15 That the accused person belongs to a very poor
family without any criminal record and no other
person in his family who could earn livelihood
for his family.
16 That all most witnesses examined by the court
and therefore no purpose would be served to
keep more the accused behind the bar.
17 That the accused person undertakes not to leave
India without permission of this Hon’ble court
and further undertakes not to tamper the P.E.
18 That the accused person is ready to comply all
the terms and condition imposed by this Hon’ble
court if he is enlarged on bail.
19 That the accused person is ready to furnish the
Prayer:
grant bail to the applicant/accused in the
above noted case, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
(in j.c.)
Through
(RAM KUMAR) ADV.

Ch.no.E-411, KKD
Courts, Delhi
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUAMR MATTO, A.D.J. KKD

COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
HMA NO. 73/2009

IN THE MATTER OF:
SMT. ARMINDER KAUR PETTIONER

V E R S U S
SH.MAHENDRA SINGH GARCHA @ KAKA JUNIOR RESPONDENT
APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION/CORRECTION IN

IN SPELLING OF NAMES AND ADDRESS RELATED TO
THE ORDER DT. 15.03.2010 IN THE ABOVE NOTED
CASE
Sir,
1 That in the above noted matter an order dt.

15.03.2010 has been passed by this Hon’ble
court, in which few spelling has been
mentioned wrongly as incorrect, therefore the
applicant want to get made correction in the
spellings as under:
Wrong Spelling Correct spelling
Shivjai Shivaji
12/C 12C
Gurprit Gurpreet
Mahendre Mahendra
Prayer:
It is therefore, most respectfully that above

wrong spelling be got corrected as shown in
correct spelling thereby passing an order to the
concerned authority, and issued fresh
judgemnet/decree with correct spellings as
mentioned above, in this case, interest of
justice.
Delhi:
(ARMINDER KAUR)
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTT. SESSION JUDGE KKD

COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S NEERAJ
S/O SH. JASPAL SINGH
R/O 26/443, TRILOK PURI,
DELHI-110095
FIR NO. 30/2010
U/S 307/34 IPC
P.S. MAYUR VIHAR
IN J.C. 23.03.2010

SIR,

police of P.S.MAYUR VIHAR and sent to J.C. on
23.03.2010, since then he is in custody.



false case.


7 That the applicant is only earning member of

his family, having clean antecedents and if the
bail is not granted to the applicant/accused
then entire family of accused/applicant shall
come under the verge of starvation.
India.

Prayer:

Delhi:

(IN J.C.)
Through
(BHATT & ASSOCIATES)
A.K.BHATT
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJEEV MHERA JUDGE MACT, KKD

COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
MACT PETITION NO.____OF _____
IN THE MATTER OF:
SATNARAYAN V/S SUNIL KOHLI
D.O.D. 13.02.2010
APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION IN THE NAME OF CLAIMANT

SATYA NARAYAN MENTIONED IN THE CHEQUE BEARING NO.
245359 DT. 10.3.2010 OF Rs. 90,000/- i.e.
COMPENSATION AMOUNT
Sir,
1 That the above noted case has been decided in

Lok Adalat on 13.02.2010.
2 That a cheque mentioned above was issued by the

insurance company in which the name of
claimant/petitioner wrongly mentioned as SH.
SAT NAVAIN, while the correct name of
applicant/claimant is SATYA NARAYAN.
3 That now the applicant wants that correct in

name of the applicant be done so that the said
cheque could be deposited/encahsed in/from
bank.
Prayer

this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to give
direction to the insurance company to be issued
fresh cheque in which correct name of
claimant/applicant be mentioned i.e. SATYA
NARAYAN, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
through
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATISH KUMAR ARORA, MM KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
ARUN KUMAR V/S BHASKAR

C.C. NO.147/2005
P.S. PANDAV NAGAR
N.D.O.H. 7.8.2010
APPLICATION FOR PREPONEMENT OF CASE ON BEHHLAF OF
COMPLAINANT ARUN KUMAR
Sir,

3 That a long date has been given in the above

noted while the matter is in stage of C.E. and
if the case is listed with long date then the
accused person can harm him, hence a short date
is necessary so that quick relief could be
taken by the complainant, hence, hence this
application.
Prayer:

to allow this application and the case be
fixed for early hearing, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 26.03.2010 APPLICANT /COMPLAINANT
Through
Counsel
(VIJAY RANA)
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI, MM KKD
COURTS DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S 1.DEEWAN SINGH

S/O SH. KALU RAM
R/O D-60/129, DAYAL PUR
DELHI-110094
2.BHAGWAN SAHAI
S/O SH. SHRI RAM
R/O E-10, MAIN ROAD,
DAYAL PUR, DELHI-94
3. DAYANAND PREMI
S/O SH. HER RAM
R/O E-5/17, DAYALPUR
DELHI-110094
FIR NO. 180/2009

U/S 7/10/55 E.C.ACT
P.S. KHAJOORI KHAS
APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGULAR BAIL ON

BEHALF OF ABOVE NAMED ACCUSED PERSONS
SIR,
1 That all the accused persons are residing at
the above noted address along with their
family members.
2 That the accused persons have been falsely
implicated by the police officials on the
instance of the complainant.
3 That all the accused have been released on
anticipatory bail by passing of order by
Hon’ble court of MS Sunita Gupta, Distt.
Judge, Delhi on 03.07.2009 and 29.07.2009
respectfully with one surety like amount of
Rs. 20,000/-.
4 That the investigation has been completed and
the concerned investigating officer shall
file the charge sheet before this Hon’ble
court today.
5 That the accused persons will follow all the
terms and conditions imposed over the
accused persons in their bail order.
6 That the accused persons undertake not to
leave India without prior permission of this
Hon’ble court/concerned investigating
officer.
7 That the accused persons undertake not tamper
the prosecution witness till the pendency of
the case.
8 That the accused persons belong to
respectable family having good reputation in
the society.
9 That the accused persons are ready to furnish
the reliable surety to the entire
Prayer:

grant regular bail to the accused persons,
Delhi:
Dated: 26.03.2010 Accused persons
Through
(RAM KUMAR)
Advocate
CH.NO.E-411, KKD COURTS,
DELHI-110032
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI, MM KKD

COURTS DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S AMIT KUMAR

FIR NO. 180/2009
U/S 7/10/55 E.C.ACT
P.S. KHAJOORI KHAS
APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGULAR BAIL ON
BEHALF OF ABOVE NAMED ACCUSED PERSON
SIR,
1 That the accused is residing at the above
noted address along with his family members.
2 That the accused has been falsely implicated
by the police officials on the instance of
the complainant.
3 That all the accused have been released on
anticipatory bail by passing of order by
Hon’ble court of MS Sunita Gupta, Distt.
Judge, Delhi on 13.08.2009 with one surety
like amount of Rs. 20,000/-.
4 That the investigation has been completed and
the concerned investigating officer shall
file the charge sheet before this Hon’ble
court today.
5 That the accused will follow all the terms
and conditions imposed over the accused in
their bail order.
6 That the accused undertake not to leave
India without prior permission of this
Hon’ble court/concerned investigating
officer.
7 That the accused undertake not tamper the
prosecution witness till the pendency of the
case.
8 That the accused belong to respectable
family having good reputation in the society.
9 That the accused is ready to furnish the
reliable surety to the entire satisfaction of
Prayer:
grant regular bail to the accused, in the
Delhi:
Dated: 26.03.2010 Accused
Through
(RAM KUMAR)
Advocate
CH.NO.E-411, KKD COURTS,
DELHI-110032
IN THE COURT OF MS SUCHI SHAHMIRI, MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S FARID AHMAD
S/O MOHD. SHARIF
R/O 466, GALI NO.16,
KARDAM PURI EXTN.
DELHI-110094
FIR NO. 12/2010
U/S 406/498-A/34 IPC
P.S. GOKAL PURI
IN J.C.

SIR,

police of P.S. GOKAL PURI on instance of
complainant and sent to J.C. on
________________ since then he is in custody.
2 That all the dowry articles has been returned

to the complainant in CAW Cell, while the
police has searched the house of accused person
in the presence of complainant where nothing
was recovered by the police.

applicant/accused made by the complainant
regarding dowry as well as cruelties are false
and frivolous which are beyond the truth while
a under a conspiracy he has been implicated
falsely in the said false case.



India.

Prayer:

Delhi:

(IN J.C.)
Through
(A.A.KHAN) ADV.
IN THE COURT OF MS SHIWALI SHARMA MM KKD COURTS,
DEHLI
STATE V/S 1
NANHE @ NAZIR
2
SABIR
FIR NO.69/2007
U/S 323/324/506/34 IPC
P.S. GOKAL PURI
D.O.H. 27.03.2010
ACCUSED PERSOSN ABOVE NAMED
SIR,
2 That the applicants/accused person could not

appear before this Hon’ble court on last date
of hearing because unfortunately he
forgotten their date of hearing as the
accused No.2 suffered from paralysis attack ,
and due to non-appearance NBW had been issued
against them.
2 That the applicant/accused undertake to

appear before this Hon’ble court on each and
3 That the absence of applicants/accused

persons were neither intentional nor willful
but due to above said reason.
PRAYER:

this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to cancel
the NBW issued against the applicant/accused
persons in this case in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
THROUGH
Counsel
INRE:
VINOD TIWARI V/S PRAGATI TIWARI

U/S 156(3) CR.P.C.
P.S. JYOTI NAGAR
D.O.H. 27.03.2010
APPLICATION FOR SUBMITS THE PHOTOCOPIES OF

STATEMENT OF 161 CR.P.C. OF THE COMPLAINANT
AND PRAGATI TIWARI AND ALSO CALLING THE
WITNESS
SIR,
2 That the concerned IO has provided the
photocopies of statement of 161 Cr.P.C. related
to Complainant, Pragati Tiwari, Sapna to the
complainant, but the I.O. did not attest the
said documents, hence the said statements is
being submitted before this Hon’ble court.
3 That it also requested to that concerned I.O.
be called in this case for that reason.
4 That the complainant also wants to call the
under mentioned witness who prepared

videography of the incident which was also
telecasted I on TV on 24.01.2009, which is
essential for the complainant to get justice.
A. Manager Bharat T.V. Babarpur Terminal,
Delhi-32.
B. Manager, AAP KI BAAT, Johri Pur,
Bhajanpura, Delhi-94
Prayer:
this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to taken
on record the photocopies of statement of 161
Cr.P.C. related to above named person, further
prayed that above named witness be called in this
case for evidence along with prepared videography
of the incident and it is further prayed IO be
called, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Through
(MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA) ADV.

INRE:
STATE V/S VISHWANATH PRATAP SINGH

FIR NO. 217/2009
U/s 279 IPC
P.S.MAYUR VIHAR
D.O.H.
APPLICATION FOR PLEAD GUILTY ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED

VISHWANATH PRATAP SINGH
Sir,

this Hon’ble court and fixed for.
2 That the applicant has been falsely implicated
as accused in the above noted case and now the
applicant/accused pleads guilty and the
applicant/accused prays to the Hon’ble court to
dispose off the said case with minimum fine,
Prayer:

to dispose off the above said case, in the
Delhi:

through
COUNSEL
(ANKIT SRIVASTAVA)

INRE:
STATE V/S CHANDER SHEKHAR TYAGI
FIR NO. 64/2010
U/S 354/509/506/427 IPC
P.S. HARSH VIHAR
D.O.H. 27.03.2010
IN J.C. 27.03.2010

SIR,

police of P.S. HARSH VIHAR and sent to J.C. on



false case.


tampering with P.E.

India.

Prayer:

Delhi:

(IN J.C.)
Through
(MAHINDRA PRATAP SINGH) ADV.
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K.GULIA MM KKD COURTS, DELHI

INRE:
STATE V/S AJAY KUAMR
S/O SH. SUFISINGH
FIR NO. 11/2010
U/S
420/468/471/482/411/34
IPC
P.S. GANDHI NAGAR

IN J.C. SINCE
13.01.2010

SIR,

police of P.S. GANDHI NAGAR and sent to J.C. on



false case.

6 That co-accused namely Shalin Jain, Farhan S/o

Julfikar and Farhan S/o Aftab Ahmad have
already been granted bail in this case.
7 That the there is no chance of his absconding

or tampering with P.E.
8 That the applicant is not a previous convict

and no case is pending against him in any court
of law.
9 That all the investigation has been completed

therefore, no purpose would be served to keep
more the accused behind the bar.
India.

Prayer:

Delhi:

(IN J.C.)
Through
(ROOP KISHORE) ADV.

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTT. & SESSIONS JUDGE (EAST
DISTT.)KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S BANARSI DAS ETC.

FIR NO. 160/2009
U/S 406/34 IPC
P.S. KRISHNA NAGAR

ANTICIPATORY BAIL ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT/ACCUSED SMT.
RAJNI W/O SH. SANJAY R/O 1713, GALI NO.17, RAJGARH
COLONY, DELHI-110031
HON’BLE SIR,
1 That the above noted applicant has been

residing along with his other family members at
his above noted address permanently.
police of Krishna Nagar on instance of
complainant.
3 That now the police has been visiting to house
of applicant in odd hours and searching the
above noted applicant.
apprehension that the police of P.S. Krishna
Nagar may arrest the applicant at any time in
future without any reasonable cause.
5 That the co-accused Ajay Mamta, Harish,
Banasrsi Dass and other co-accused are on bail
in this case.
6 That the above noted applicant belongs to poor
family, having clean antecedents, as she has
nothing to do with the offence as alleged her,
while she is living separately at her
matrimonial home.
7 That the co-accused has already returned the
dowry articles/stridhan to the complainant on
09.11.2009.
8 That the applicant undertake not to tamper the
prosecution witness till the pendency of the
case if any found against him.
9 That the applicant also undertakes to abide by
Hon’ble court.
satisfaction of this Hon’ble court if any case
is found pending against him.
Prayer:

to grant anticipatory bail to the
applicant/accused and direct the concerned
SHO/IO to be released the applicant in the
event of her arrest, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Dated:29.03.2010 Applicant/accused
Through
VIJAY KUMAR RANA

(Advocate)
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH A.S.J. COURT KKD

DELHI
INRE:
FIR NO. 372/2004
U/S 399/402/120-B/34 IPC
P.S. BHAJANPURA
D.O.H.03.05.2010
APPLCIATION FOR REDUCE THE SURETY AMOUNT ON BEHLAF

OF SURETY NAMED RAIS AHMAD S/O JAMIRUL HASAN R/O
C-302, GALI NO.12, MULLA COLONY, DELHI
SIR,

2 That the applicant who stood surety for accused,
is unable to produce accused due to which he wants
to deposit the surety amount.
3 That due to financial crises and his illness, he
is unable to deposit entire surety amount and
therefore he wants that surety amount be reduced
as most of part of his body paralyzed and whatever
amount collected by the applicant has been
arranged by borrowing from the family members.
Prayer:

application and surety amount be reduced as this
Hon’ble court deem fit seeing the situation of the
applicant, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
DATED: 12.05.2009 Applicant/surety

Through
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH A.S.J. COURT KKD
DELHI
INRE:
FIR NO. 372/2004
U/S 399/402/120-B/34 IPC
P.S. BHAJANPURA
D.O.H.03.05.2010
APPLCIATION FOR REDUCE THE SURETY AMOUNT ON BEHLAF

OF ACCUSED ARIF @ JAVED
SIR,
1 That in the above noted case bail order has been

passed with one surety like amount of Rs. 25,000/-
dt. 26.03.2010.
2 That the applicant/accused is very poor person and
unable to produce au surety like amount of Rs.
25,000/- while he can only produce the surety like
amount of Rs. 10,000/-, therefore he wants that
surety amount of Rs. 25,000/- be reduced upto
10,000/-.
Prayer:

this application and surety amount be reduced and
accept a surety like amount of Rs. 10,000/-, in
Delhi:
DATED: 29.03.2010 Applicant/ACCUSED
Through
Counsel
(ADARSH KUMAR)
DELHI
INRE:
V/S BHUPINDER BHATI
C.C. NO.
U/S 138 N.I.ACT

P.S. BHAJANPURA
N.D.O.H.
IN CUSTODY

SIR,
this Hon’ble court and fixed for ________.

2 That on 10.03.2010, the accused has came to
Delhi from Himachal which is his workplace
and then he came to Delhi, his father told
him that there is NBW from unknown court and
then he contacted to his counsel regarding
this, but his counsel could not search the
said case.
3 That on 29.03.2010 the applicant/accused has
been arrested by the police as per order of
this Hon’ble court and since then he is in
custody.
5 That the applicant/accused is always ready to
pay the settled amount
Prayer:

Delhi:

(IN J.C.)
Through
(AJAY NAGAR)
ADV.
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTT. & SESSION JUDGE

KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
MOHD. SHAHID
S/O MOHD. SHAHBUDDIN
MOHD. SHAHBUDDIN
S/O SH. KALLU BAKSH
BOTH R/O C-268, GALI NO.7,

CHAUHAN BANGER,
DEHLI-110053
V E R S U S
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
FIR NO. NOT KNOWN

U/S NOT KNOWN
P.S.JAFRABAD
FIRST BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. FOR
GRANT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL ON BEHALF OF THE
ABOVE NOTED APPLICANTS
SIR,
1 That the above noted applicants are residing

at the above noted address permanently and he
is peace loving and law abiding citizen of
India.
2 That a police officials of P.S. Jafrabad has
been continuously visiting to the house of
applicants at odd hours and harassing and
humiliating the applicants without disclosing
any reason and calling the applicants to
come into Police station Jafrabad, in this
connection whenever the applicants ask about
the matter from the said police official then
he scolded the applicant and threatened them
to face dire consequences if they disobey
them.
3 That the above noted applicants have much
applicants in any false case.
4 That the applicant are not a previous
convict, having clean antecedents.
5 That the applicants are ready to join the
investigation if any found to do so.
6 That the above noted applicants belong to
respectable family without having any
criminal record.
7 That the above noted applicants are ready to
abide by all the terms and conditions imposed
8 That the above noted applicants are ready to
Prayer:
applicants and direct the concerned IO/SHO to
release the applicants in the event of their
arrest if want in any false case, in the interest
of justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 29.03.2010 Applicants

Through
COUNSEL

INRE:
STATE V/S
FIR NO. 100/2010
U/S 279 IPC
P.S. MAYUR VIHAR
VEHICLE NO. HR-55-C-2645

ON BEHALF OF A.R. SH. MADAN SINGH S/O SH. ABDUL SINGH
R/O 33A, KAMLA NAGAR, DELHI-110007
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
THIS DEED OF SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY is executed

at Delhi on this 29TH day of March 2010 SH.
PRAHLAD SHARMS, AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY OF
R.V.INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. HAVIGN ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE: 411-GD-ITL, NORTEX TOWER, A-9, NETAJI
SUBHASH PALACE, PITAMPURA, DELHI-34 (hereinafter
called the Executant).
Whereas VEHICLE BEARING NO. HR-55C-2645 has

been involved in the said case and the the said
vehicle has been registered in the above named
company therefore the under mentioned person
namely SH. MADAN SINGH S/O SH. ABDUL SINGH R/O
33A, KAMLA NAGAR, DELHI-110007 has been authorized
to do the following acts, deeds and things as
under:
Now this special power of attorney witnessth as under:
1 To represent us in this case before above

mentioned Hon’ble court or any appellate court
in respect of said matter on behalf.
2 To file and sign any application, documents,
affidavit, Vakalatnama, Superdginama, in
respect of said case on behalf of company.
3 To get the above said vehicle released on
superdari from Hon’ble court or concerned
police station on behalf of company.
His statement shall be bind upon me, his
signature are appended below for further
action.
In witnesses whereof I the executant has put my

hand on this deed of special power of attorney
on the day, month and year first above
mentioned, in the presence of marginal
witnesses.
Accepted By Executants
MADAN SINGH PRAHLAD SHARMA
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTT. & SESSION JUDGE KKD

COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S ILU & OTHERS
FIR NO.30/2010
U/S 307/34 IPC
P.S. MAYUR VIHAR
J.C. SINCE 23.03.2010
BAIL APPLICATION U/S 437 CR.P.C. FOR GRANT OF BAIL

ON BEHALF OF THE ABOVE NOTED APPLICANT NEERAJ S/O
SH. JAS PAL SINGH R/O 26/443, TRILOK PURI, DELHI-
110095
SIR,

1 That the applicant has surrender in P.S.
M.Vihar, Delhi on the direction of Hon’ble
court, therefore this application is being
filed.
2 That the above noted applicant is residing
at the above noted address permanently,
having no criminal history, he is aged
about 18 years, and he is student of class
XIth and at the time of incident he was
suffering from Jaundice and now he is
still suffering from Jaundice and is not
joining school class.
3 That on the day of accident the applicant
was with his friend Monu R/o 36/121,
Trilok Puri, Delhi from where the motor
cycle was recovered and applicant was
playing Cricket at near by field.
4 That the applicant has been falsely
police of P.S. Mayur Vihar, while the
applicant has nothing to do with the
offence as alleged upon him as he is
totally innocent person and has been
become a scape goat by the police.
5 That the police of P.S. Mayur Vihar has
been visiting to the house of applicant

and harassing and humiliating the
applicant and his other family members.
6 That both the co-accused has already been
released on bail.
7 That TIP for the applicant/accused has
been fixed for 27.03.2010.
8 That the complainant had already been
discharged from the hospital.
9 That the above noted applicant undertakes
not to tamper the prosecution evidence.
I.O.
11 That the anticipatory bail application u/s
438 cr.P.C. has been withdrawn
on23.03.2010 when the applicant went to
investigation on direction of court and
surrender in P.S. Mayur Vihar, where
police has not followed the direction of
the Hon’ble court during the pendency of
anticipatory bail application since
24.02.2010 to 23.03.2010 applicant visited
in P.S. Mayur Vihar on 11.03.2010,
13.03.2010 again on dt. 17.03.2010, the
Hon’ble court had given direction to
appear before the I.P. on dt. 20.03.2010,

in presence of SHO, but the I.O. was
absent and application stayed in P.S.
since 4.00 PM to 6.30 PM and SHO had given
instruction to come on 23.03.2010 at 10.00
AM, the applicant came in Police station
and arrested by the police official Mayur
Vihar, and SHO was summoned by the Hon’ble
court for doing so.
12 That the bail application filed in MM
Court has been dismissed on 29.03.2010.
14 That the above noted applicant ready to
imposed by this Hon’ble court.
furnish the reliable and sound surety to
the entire satisfaction of this Hon’ble
Prayer:
pleased to grant bail to the applicant, in this

Delhi:
(IN J.C.)
Through
BHATT & ASSOCIATES

(Advocate)
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA MM KKD COURT,

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S PANKAJ KAPOOR

FIR NO. 379/2003
U/s 25/54/59 A.Act
P.S. SHAHDARA
N.D.O.H. 05.04.2010
APPLICATION FOR STAY/CANCEL/RECALL OF
PROCEEDING U/S 82/83 CR.P.C. INITIATED
AGAINST THE APPLICANT/ACCUSED PANKAJ KAPOOR
05.04.2010.
hearing because unfortunately he forgotten
his date of hearing while due to non-
appearance NBW had been issued against him
and thereafter proceeding U/s 82/83 Cr.P.C.
shas been initiated against him.
hearing in future.
4 That if the proceeding U/s 82/83 Cr.P.C. is
not stayed/recalled/cancelled then the
applicant/ accused shall suffer an
irreparable loss and injuries.
future.
Prayer:
the proceeding U/s 82/83 Cr.P.C. initiated
against the applicant/accused, in the
Delhi
THROUGH
counsel
(S.P.THAKUR & R.S. TIWARI)
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH SAINI, ASJ/C.A.

INCHARGE, KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE
RECEIPT No. 011573 dt. 31.03.2010
Sub: Application for supplying certified copy of above

noted receipt on today.
Sir,
1 That earlier the applicant had applied ON

22.03.2010 for certificate copies in respect of
case FIR No.447/1996 U/s 302/34 IPC, P.S.
BHAJANPURA, but no proper documents had been
supplied to the applicant, therefore the
applicant again applied for certified copies.
2 That the said certified copy is to file in
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India due to which the
applicant wants that today the said certificate
copies in respect of above receipt be given
today.
Prayer:

application and pass an order thereby directing to
the concerned incharge of C.A. to be supplied the
certified copy, in to thye matter, in the interest
of justice.
Delhi:
THROUGH
Counsel
INRE:
STATE V/S NAUSHAD

CHALLAN NO. 714352
U/S 66/192,138.3/177
VEHICLE NO. DL-1LE-
3472

SIR,
1 That the above challan has been contested by

the applicant which is fixed for 30.04.2010.
2 That the applicant is the driver of the said
vehicle and want to pay the fine for disposal
of the said challan contested by him, hence
this application.
prayer:

Delhi:
Dated: Applicant
(Naushad)
THROUGH
(PARMANANT JAINT)
I.D. No.
For Office Use
To,
OFFICE OF DEPUTY POLICE COMMISSIONER
DISTT. EAST
SHALIMAR PARK, DELHI-32
Sir,
1 Name of applicant: AMIT CHANDAK

C/O PANNA LAL CHAUDHARY
S/O LATE SH. RAMESH CHANDAK
98C, SHIV PURI,
NEAR YADAV SWEETS,
SECTOR-9, NEW VIJAY NAGAR
GHAZIABAD, U.P.
OFFICE OF DCP
DISTT. EAST
1 Supply to me the ACTION TAKEN REPORT on the

application filed in the office of DCP Distt.
East, Delhi on 5.2.2010 by Amit Chandak S/o Sh.
Ramesh Chandak, T/o C-365, Ground Floor, (Back
side), Yojna Vihar, Delhi.


Delhi:
Dated: Signature
AMIT CHANDAK
98C, SHIV PURI,
NEAR YADAV SWEETS,
GHAZIABAD, U.P.
I.D. No.
For Office Use
To,

OFFICE OF DEPUTY POLICE COMMISSIONER
DISTT. EAST
Sir,
1 Name of applicant: AMIT CHANDAK

98C, SHIV PURI,
NEAR YADAV SWEETS,
GHAZIABAD, U.P.
OFFICE OF DCP
DISTT. EAST
1 Supply to me the ACTION TAKEN REPORT on the

application filed in the office of DCP Distt.
East, Delhi on 19.2.2010 by Amit Chandak S/o Sh.
Ramesh Chandak, T/o C-365, Ground Floor, (Back
side), Yojna Vihar, Delhi.

Delhi:
Dated: Signature
AMIT CHANDAK
98C, SHIV PURI,
NEAR YADAV SWEETS,
GHAZIABAD, U.P.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIVEK KUMAR GULIA MM KKD COURTS,
DELHI
IN RE:
STATE V/S HARISH SHYAM MISHRA

U/S 379/411/34 IPC
FIR NO.
P.S.
N.D.O.H.7.6.2010
APPLICATION FOR EARLY HEARING
SIR,
2 That in the above noted case, the surety wants
to deposit the surety amount but case has been
fixed for 7.6.2010 which is very long date
while the accused is ready to pay the surety
amount as the accused is far from the reach of
surety, therefore she wants that case be fixed
for early hearing.
3 It is necessary to mention here that FDR of the
surety named Bawantwati has been deposited in
this case, which also is to be returned to the
surety, hence this application.
Prayer:
this application and surety amount be deposited in
this case after reducing and original FDR of
surety be released in her favour, in the interest
of justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 01.04.2010 Surety
(BHAWANWATI)
w/O Sh. Hari Shyam Mishra
To,
The President/Secretary,
Delhi-110032.
Sub: Complaint against typist Rashmi who is

running illegal/commercial activity and also violating
the rule and regulation as per license issued by
Hon’ble Distt. Judge, at Chamber No. D-227.
Sir,
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DUTY METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S KHURSHID KHAN @ RAJU
S/O SH. SALEEM KHAN
R/O KACHI COLONY, BALRAM
NAGAR, LONI, GHAZIABAD, U.P.
FIR NO. 38/2003
U/S 25/54/59 ARMS ACT
P.S.ANAND VIHAR
IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY
S SINCE: 20.03.2010
APPLICATION FOR CALLING THE REPORT FROM JAIL
SUPERINTENDENT TIHAR, NEW DELHI AS TO WHY THE
APPLICANT/ACCUSED HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED SO FAR?
SIR,
1 That in the aforesaid case bail bond has

been accepted by the court of Sh. Rakesh
Pandir, ACMM, KKD Court, Delhi on
01.04.2010 and also release warrant has
been sent to Jail Superintendent, Tihar,
New Delhi, but the applicant/accused has
yet not been released from Tihar Jail New
Delhi.
Prayer:
direct the jail superintendent Tihar, New
Delhi to release the applicant/accused from
Tihar jail and report may also be called as
to why the applicant/accused has not been yet
released from Tihar Jail, New Delhi, in this
Delhi:
(IN J.C.)
Through
(PANKAJ BHUSHAN)ADV.
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DUTY METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S SUHAIL KHAN
S/O SH. MANJOOR ALI
R/O E-49, C-364,
JANTA MAZDOOR COLONY,
WELCOME, DELHI-53
FIR NO. 60/2010
U/S 324/34 IPC
P.S. WELCOME
IN P.C.

SIR,

police of P.S. WELCOME and was arrested on
2.4.2010 since then he is in P.C.



false case.

6 That The applicant/accused is only earning

member of his and if he is not released then
his entire family will come under the verge of
starvation.

India.

Prayer:

Delhi:

(IN P.C.)
Through
(NAR SINGH) ADV.
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRAVEEN SINGH A.R.C. KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
D.R. NO.
IN THE MATTER OF:
BALBIR SINGH PETITIONER

V E R S U S
DULARI DEVI RESPONDENT
APPLICATION FOR DEPOSIT OF RENT FOR THE MONTH
OF APRIL -2010 @ RS. 400/- PER MONTH
1 That the applicant is the petitioner in the

above noted case.
2 That the applicant wants to deposit the monthly
rent of tenanted premises for the month of
APRIL 2010 @ Rs. 400/- per month.
Prayer:
In the facts and circumstances, mentioned herein

above and in the interest of Justice, the
applicant may kindly be permitted to deposit a
sum of Rs. 400/- as the rent for the month of
APRIL 2010 as rent of tenanted premises, in the
Delhi:
Dated: applicant/petitioner
Through
ANAND TRIPATHI(ADV.)
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRAVEEN SINGH A.R.C. KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
D.R. NO. 105/2010
IN THE MATTER OF:
BALBIR SINGH PETITIONER

V E R S U S
DULARI DEVI RESPONDENT
APPLICATION FOR DEPOSIT OF RENT FOR THE MONTH
OF MARCH-2010 @ RS. 400/- PER MONTH
1 That the applicant is the petitioner in the

above noted case.
2 That the applicant wants to deposit the monthly
rent of tenanted premises for the month of
March 2010 @ Rs. 400/- per month.
Prayer:
In the facts and circumstances, mentioned herein

above and in the interest of Justice, the
applicant may kindly be permitted to deposit a
sum of Rs. 400/-as the rent for the month of March
2010 as rent of tenanted premises, in the interest
of justice.
Delhi:
Dated: applicant/petitioner
Through
ANAND TRIPATHI(ADV.)
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKUR JAIN M.M. KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S MAHESH
S/O SH. MOOL CHAND
R/O B-347, ASHOK NAGAR,
DELHI.
FIR NO. 209/2003
U/S 3/4/5 G.ACT.
P.S. M.S. PARK
D.O.H. 03.04.2010
J.C. SINCE 20.03.2010
APPLICATIOIN UNDER SECTION 265-B ( OF CHAPTER XXI-
A) CR.P.C. IN RESPECT OF “PLEA BARGAINING”.
1 That the applicant has been facing trial in the

above noted matter.
Hon’ble court and fixed for 03.04.2010 and is
at the stage of appearance
3 That as per FIR/complaint the accused alleged
to have committed offence(s) punishable 3/4/5
G.Act.
4 That the applicant has preferred this
application voluntarily after understanding the
nature of allegations against him and the
extent of punishment provided under the law for
the offence(s) in question.
5 That the applicant has not previously been
convicted by any court in a case in which he
had been charged with the same offence(s).
Prayer:
consider the application for plea bargaining, as
per the provisions of Section 265 Cr.P.C.
Delhi: Applicant
Dated: through
Counsel
(DEVI SAHAI)
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKUR JAIN M.M. KKD COURTS, DELHI

INRE:
STATE V/S MAHESH
S/O SH. MOOL CHAND
R/O B-347, ASHOK NAGAR,
DELHI.
FIR NO. 209/2003
U/S 3/4/5 G.ACT.
P.S. M.S. PARK
D.O.H. 03.04.2010
J.C. SINCE 20.03.2010
AFFIDAVIT IN APPLICATIOIN UNDER SECTION 265-B (
OF CHAPTER XXI-A) CR.P.C. IN RESPECT OF “PLEA
BARGAINING”.
I, MAHESH S/O SH. MOOL CHAND R/O B-347, ASHOK
NAGAR,DELHI do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:
1 I say that I have filed the accompanying
application for plea bargain in accordance with
the provisions of SECTION 265( OF CHAPTER XXI-A)
Cr.P.C. I say that this application is made
voluntarily, without any influence and pressure.
2 I say and submit that I understand the contents of

the application and that I am aware of the nature
and extent of punishment provided by law in this
case.
3 I say that I have not previously been convicted in

a case in which I have been charged with the same
offence as the one in the present matter.
Deponent
Verification:
Verified at Delhi on this 3RD day of April 2010 that
all the contents of above affidavit are correct and
true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing
has been concealed therefrom.
Deponent
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIVEK KUMAR GULIA MM KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
PARNESH KUMAR JAIN V/S RAJENDER MAHENDRU

U/S 138 N.I.ACT
C.C.NO. 85/1/2007
P.S.GANDHI NAGAR
D.O.H. 03.04.2010
APPLICATION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF SURETY BOND ON

BEHALF OF SURETY NAMED _________________________
HON’BLE SIR,

RAJENDER MAHENDRU, and now the surety is unable
to produce the accused before this Hon’ble
court in future, as the accused is out of
control from the reach of surety as his conduct
was extremely suspicious in past, therefore the
applicant/surety wants that his surety bond be
cancelled and he be discharged from his
liabilities.
Prayer:
it is therefore most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased cancel the
surety bond applicant/surety and surety be
discharged from his liabilities, in the interest
of justice.
Delhi
THROUGH
Counsel
(R.S.TIWARI)

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S DANISH
S/O SH. KASIM
FIR NO. 137/2010
U/S 379/411 IPC
P.S. BHAJANPURA
IN J.C.
SINCE 25.03.2010

SIR,

police of P.S. BHAJANPURA and sent to J.C. on

offence as alleged upon him, having clean
antecedents.


false case.


tampering with P.E.

India.

Prayer:

Delhi:

(IN J.C.)
Through
(Adarsh Kumar) ADV.
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE ADDL. DISTT. & SESSION JUDGE

ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
STATE V/S NASEEM @ JAVED @ NOOR @ CHOTU

S/O SH. IRFAN
FIR NO. /2008
U/S 392/395/397/411/34 IPC
P.S. SAMAY PUR BADLI
D.O.H. 06.04.2010
APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF PRODUCTION WARRANT OF

APPLCIANT/ACCUSED PERSONS ABOVE NAMED
SIR,
2 That the applicant/accused person is in

judicial custody in case FIR No. 44/2008, U/s
392/397/411 IPC, P.S. JAWAHAR NAGAR, DISTT.
KOTA and is lodged in Distt. Jail Kota,
Rajasthan therefore the production warrant of
ACCUSED is essential to be issued for his
appearance.
PRAYER:

this application and issue production warrant of
ACCUSED, directing the superintendent of Distt.
jail Kota, to produce the accused before this
Hon’ble court, on each and every date of hearing,
Delhi:
THROUGH
Counsel
13 That the accused is suffering from polio in his

right leg
INRE:
STATE V/S VIKAS YADAV
FIR NO. 108/2010
U/S 279/337/304A IPC
P.S. NEW USMANPUR
VEHICLE NO. HR-45-6170
APPLCIATION FOR SURRENDER CUM BAIL ON BEHALF OF THE

ABOVE NAMED APPLICANT/ACCUSED
SIR,
1 That the applicants/accused persons have been

falsely implicated in the above noted case by
the police of P.S. NEW USMAN PUR.
3 That the applicant/accused has come to know

that the police of P.S. NEW USMAN PUR has been
visiting to the house of applicant/accused for
his arrest, therefore, he wants surrender

convict and no case is pending against him in
any court of law.
5 That the allegation leveled against the

are beyond the truth while under a conspiracy
false case.



India.
9 That the applicant/accused is ready to furnish

the reliable surety to the entire satisfaction
of this Hon’ble court.
Prayer:
accept the surrender of accused and he may be
released on bail, in this case, in the
Delhi:
Through

INRE
EXECUTION NO. 184/____
IN THE MATTER OF:
SMT. LALITA V/S SATISH KUMAR SURI

D.O.H.22.05.2010
APPLICATIOIN FOR RELESE THE CHEQUE DEPOSITED BY

THE JUDGEMENT DEBTOR IN FAVOUR OF THE DECREE
HOLDER SMT. LALITA
HON’BLE MADAM,

2 That the applicant is the decree holder in the
above noted case and has filed the above said
execution and wants to get the cheque deposited
by the judgemnet debtor released in her favour.
Prayer:
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this

application and the cheque may also be released in
favour fo the applicant/decree holder in her favor
Delhi:
Dated: 3.4.2010 Applicant/decree holder
Through
Counsel

INRE:
STATE V/S SHAMBHU PANDEY

CHALLAN NO.77934
VEHICLE NO. DL-1RF-6360
U/S 130/177, 66/192, 130/177
M.V.ACT
COURT DATE:5.4.2010

SIR,

Hon’ble court and was fixed for 5.4.2010.
2 That the applicant is the DRIVER of the said
vehicle, and the applicant accept his guilty and
ready to pay the fine whatsoever shall be imposed
upon him therefore he wants that said challan be
heard today and same may be disposed off, hence
this application.
prayer:

Delhi:
Dated: Applicant
(SHAMBHU PANDEY)
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTT. & SESSIONS JUDGE (DISTT.

INRE:
PARVEZ ANSARI
S/O MANZOOR ANSARI
R/O K-478, NEW SEELAMPUR,
DELHI-110053
V/S STATE
FIR NO. NOT KNOWN

U/S NOT KNOWN
P.S. KRISHNA NAGAR

APPLICANT NAMELY PAVEZ ANSARI
SIR,

the above noted address permanently.
2 That the some police officials of P.S.
Krishna Nagar, has been visiting to the
house of applicant at odd hours, and they
are putting pressure over the family members
of applicant to send the applicant to Police
Station of P.S. Krishna Nagar without
disclosing any reason, while the applicant
has nothing to do with the any offence/crime.
4 That the applicant is not a previous convict.
I.O./SHO concerned.
Prayer:

applicant and direct the concerned IO/SHO to
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
(JAGMOHAN SINGH)
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR MM KKD COURTS, DELHI

INRE:
FULLERTON INDIA CREDITS LTD. V/S RAKESH KUMAR
C.C.NO.
U/S 138 N.I.ACT
SENT TO J.C. ON
01.04.2010

SIR,
1 That the above mentioned case is pending before
this Hon’ble court and is fixed for appearance
of the accused on 15.05.2010.
2 That in the present case, an amicable
settlement has been arrived at between the
parties and the present applicant/accused has
been making the installment amount to the
complainant.
3 That on the date of hearing fixed for
28.02.2010, the accused reached at the court
premises with the installment amount but came
to know that 28.02.2010 has been declared
holiday. The accused had to leave for his
native place on 28.02.2010 and he could reach
at Delhi after two weeks.
4 That after reaching at Delhi, the accused came
to know from the surety that the matter has
been heard on 2.3.2010 and this Hon’ble court
was pleased to issued NBW against the accused.
After getting this information the accused
moved an application on 28.03.2010 for
cancellation of NBW and the same was listed for
the date fixed for hearing on 30.03.2010.

5 That on 30.03.2010, the accused could not reach
before this Hon’ble court on time and when the
matter was called the accused was absent and
when the accused reached before this Hon’ble
court on 30.03.2010, he came to know that this
Hon’ble court was pleased to issue process u/s
82 Cr.P.C. against the accused and notice to
his surety.
6 That on 31.03.2010, the accused moved an
application for recalling of order dated
31.03.2010 and the same was listed on
01.04.2010. On 01.04.2010, this Hon’ble court
was pleased to dismissed the application of the
accused and the accused was sent to Judicial
Custody on 01.04.2010 and the surety of the
accused was directed to deposit Rs. 5,000/-
against forfeiture of surety bond.
7 That the accused is ready to pay the balance
installment amount of the complainant.
8 That the accused is permanent resident of Delhi
and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from
justice.
9 That the accused is not a previous convict.

10 That the accused is married and having four
minor children and he is sole bread earner of
his family.
Prayer:
Delhi:

(IN J.C.)
Through
RAM LAL & HEMRAJ
Advocates
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTT. & SESSION JUDGE DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S RAVI RAM

S/O LATE SH. KAILASH RAM
R/O A-39, GALI NO.2,
SEWA SADAN BLOCK, MANDAWALI
FAZAL PUR DELHI-110092
FIR NO. 692/2009
U/S 395 IPC
P.S. MANDAWALI FAZALPUR
FIRST APPLICATION U/S 439 CR.P.C. FOR GRANT

OF BAIL ON BEHALF OF ABOVE NAMED
APPLCIANT/ACCISED RAVI RAM
police of P.S.
2 That on 30.12.2009 the applicant/accused was
lifted from his house by the police officials
of the P.S. Mandawali on the disclosure
statement and then he has been in J.C.
3 That it is pertinent to mention here that no
such recovery was effected from his
possession or at his instance.
4 That the investigation has already been
completed hence now the aforesaid
applicant/accused is not required at all for
any kind of investigation and the challan has
been filed by the prosecution in this case.
5 That till date not an iota of evidence is
there against the applicant/accused.
6 That the applicant/accused submits that he
has been victimized in the alleged offence,

he is confident of proving his innocence when
the same is tried in the Ld. Court.
Delhi and the members of his family are
living in Bihar and there is no chance of his
absconding if he is released on bail.
convict and he has clean antecedent.
9 That there is no likelihood of tampering with
the prosecution evidence or fleeing from
justice.
10 That the applicant/accused is ready to
furnish the sound surety and is ready to
comply with all condition imposed by this
Hon’ble board for the grant of bail.
Prayer:
It is therefore, most respectfully
pleased to grant bail to the
applicant/accused in this case, in the
Delhi:
(in J.C.)
Through
Counsels
(GANGA SINGH & S.P.VERMA) ADV,
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K.GAUTAM, MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S NASEEM
FIR NO. 444/2007
U/S 25/54/59 A.ACT
P.S.MAYUR VIHAR
D.O.D.
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE THE FDR OF SURETY NAMED NAZIRA

Hon’ble court and fixed for _____________.
2 That the applicant stood surety for accused NASEEM

in this case and at the time of producing the bail
bond FDR of Rs. ___________ had been deposited in
this case by the surety/applicant.
3 That now the applicant/surety wants to get the

said FDR returned in her favour as another
documents has been deposited in this case on
behalf of surety.
Prayer:

the endorsement made on FDR and same be released
in favour of surety in this case, in the interest
of justice.
Delhi:
THROUGH
COUNSEL
IN THE COURT OF ____________________ MM KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S ______________________
VEHICLE NO.___________
CIRCLE NO.____________
U/S __________________
CHALLAN NO.___________
APPLICATION FOR CONTESTING THE ABOVE NOTED CHALLAN/CASE

AND FOR RELEASE THE ABOVE SAID VEHICLE ON SUPERDARI

1 That the applicant is the driver of the above
said vehicle and wants to contest the case
/challan as the present challan is illegal and
against the law.
2 That the challan has been recorded by the
challaning officer arbitrarily and the
applicant/driver did not commit any offence.
3 That the applicant/owner/driver is ready to
file the superdginama as per the direction of
Prayer:
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the
applicant/driver be permitted to contest the
case/challan, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Dated: Applicant/driver
Through
Counsel
IN THE COURT OF _________________________MM KKD COURTS,

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S ______________________
VEHICLE NO.___________
CIRCLE NO.____________
U/S __________________
CHALLAN NO.___________
ON BEHALF OF OWNER ___________________________________
SIR,

said vehicle which have been impounded in
the said challan by the police and same is
lying in Circle __________.

above said vehicle and being owner he
court.
Prayer:

superdari in favour of the applicant/owner,
Delhi:
Dated: APPLICANT/OWNER
Through
Counsel
IN THE COUT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S YAMIN & OTHERS
FIR NO.36/2010
U/S 395/397/34 IPC
P.S. VIVEK VIHAR
APPLICATION FOR ISSUNACE OF RELEASE ORDER TO

THE SUPERINTENDENT TIHAR JAIL, NEW DELHI ON
BEHALF OF ACCUSED YAMIN S/O SH. MAKSOOD
SIR,
1 That in the above noted case bail has been granted
to the accused by this Hon’ble court on
01.04.2010, and the release order was sent on
5.4.2010 to Superintendent Dasna Jail, Ghaziabad,
but the accused above named was transferred to
Tihar Jail, Delhi on same day, therefore released
order for the jail superintendent Tihar Delhi is
necessary to be issued so that the accused could
be got released.
Prayer:
this application and released order again be issued
in the name of Jail Superintendent Tihar Delhi, and
the direction be given to jail superintendent, Tihar
tobe released the accused, in this case, in the
Delhi:
Through
(MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA) ADV.

INRE:
MEHRUNNISHA V/S MUSTIZAD BEGH @ BADSHAH KHAN
A F F I D A V I T
I, MEHRUNNISHA W/O SH. MUSTIZAD BEGH @ BADSHAH KHAN R/O
75, SEWA SADAN BLOCK, MANDAWALI, FAZALPUR, DELHI-
110092, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1 That deponent is the petitioner/D.H. in the

above noted case.
2 That the respondent/ J.D. has been residing at
Gali No.5, B-Block, Near Chand Masjid,
Mandawali, Delhi-110092.
3 That the deponent brought the police officials
of P.S. Mandawali at the above address of
respondent/JD in the month of March 2010.
4 That the respondent/JD intentionally and
deliberately is avoiding to receive the arrest
warrant while the address of respondent/JD is
correct, but the police is not arrested him,
reason best known by them.
Deponent
Verification:
Verified at Delhi on this 6th day of April 2010

Deponent
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJEEV MEHRA, P.O.M.A.C.T. KKD

COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
ANIL KUMAR CHAUHAN V/S RAJU
N.D.O.H. 2.12.2010
APPLICATION U/S 151 OF CPC FOR

PREPONEMENT/EARLY HEARING IN THE SAID CASE
SIR,
this Hon’ble court and fixed for petitioner’s
evidence.
2 That on the previous date of hearing, the
counsel for the petitioner went to the another
court due to which this Hon’ble court adjourned
the matter for 2.12.2010.
3 That the accident of the petitioner took place
in the year 2005 and since then the petitioner
have received no monetary help from any
authority.
4 That the petitioner is a physically handicapped
in the present case and is only bread earner in
the family.
5 That the delay in the present would lead to
starvation of the petitioner along with his
family in the present case.
Prayer:
application and matter be fixed for early hearing,
Delhi:
Dated: 6.4.2010 Petitioner
IN THE COURT OF S.S. MALHOTRA A.S.J. KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
DEEPAK SHARMA V/S SMT. PRABHA

G&W ACT PETITION
NO._________
N.D.O.H.1.05.2010

CASE ON BEHALF OF DEEPAK SHARMA
SIR,

1 That the above noted is pending before this
Hon’ble court and fixed for 01.05.2010 for
consideration.
2 That the applicant is the petitioner in the above

noted case and a long date has been given to the
petitioner, while a settlement has been arrived
between the parties and both the parties wants to
take divorce by way of mutual consent, as first
motion has been filed which is fixed for
08.04.2010, while the respondent is ready to
withdraw her petition, therefore the applicant
wants early hearing in this case for further
proceeding of other case.
Prayer:
hearing.
Delhi:
Through
(RAM KUMAR) ADV.

IN THE COURT OF SH. MAHAVIR SINGHAL JUDGE MACT, KKD
COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
DINESH KUMAR V/S SHO NAND NAGRI

FIR NO. 241/2009
U/S 279/338 IPC
P.S. NAND NAGRI
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE OF RS. 50,000/- DEPOSITED

BY THE APPLICANT/OWNER OF THE VEHICLE
SIR,
1 That on 5.3.2010 the applicant/owner of the

offending vehicle has deposited Rs. 50,000/-
before the Ld. M.M. on the direction of this
Hon’ble court because the offending vehicle
was not insured on the date of accident.
2 That now the matter between the petitioner
and the applicant as well as the driver of
the offending vehicle has been amicably
settled AND settle amount has been given to
the injured and the present case as well as
case u/s 279/338 IPC has been disposed off by
this Hon’ble court and the court of MS.
Shiwali Sharma, Ld. MM on 19.04.2010 and
39.04.2010 respectively.
3 That the matter has been settled between the
parties and the settle amount has been given
to the petitioner/injured and Rs. 50,000/-
which has been deposited on 5.3.2010, is non
more required for trial as the matter has
been amicably settled.
Prayer:
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that Rs.

50,000/- be deposited in the MM Court on 5.3.2010 by
the applicant, may kindly be pleased to release to
the applicant/owner of the vehicle.
Delhi:
Dated: 7.04.2010 Applicant/owner
(MOHD.HASIM)
Through
Counsel
INRE:
STATE V/S
FIR NO.
U/S
P.S.
D.O.H.
APPLICATION FOR RETURN THE ORIGINAL R.C. OF VEHCILE NO.
_________________ AND ALSO DEPOSIT THE FDR
SIR,

___________ in this case, which is pending
before this Hon’ble court and fixed for _______.
2 That the original RC of the vehcle of the surety

had been deposited in this case, now the
applicant/surety want to get the same withdraw and
in place of it, wants to deposit the FDR, of
Rs.____________ issued by ______________________
vide its No.___________,hence this application.
Prayer:

this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to return
the original RC of the vehicle and accept the FDR
mentioned in this case, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Dated: Applicant/surety
THROUGH
(JITENDER SIROHI)
ADVOCATE
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR, MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S YAMEEN & OTHERS
FIR NO. 36/2010
P.S. VIVEK VIHAR
APPLICATION FOR CALLING THE STATUS REPORT

SIR,
1 That the above named accused was released on
3.04.2010 and the bail bond has been accepted
on 7.04.2010, but the above named accused could
not released by the jail authority Tihar, New
Delhi, with the reason best known by here,
therefore status report is necessary as why the
accused has not yet been released from Tihar
jail.
Prayer:

Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to call the status
report from the Jail Superintendent, Tihar, Delhi as to
why the accused has not yet been released, in the
Delhi: Applicant/accused
Dated: through
Adv.
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE ADDL. DISTT. & SESSIONS JUDGE

DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S SALEEM
S/O SH. SHARIF
R/O 1995, GALI NO.8,
BAJRANG MOHALLA,
MAUJPUR, DELHI-110053
FIR NO. 294/2006
U/S 365/302/201/34 IPC
P.S. KHAJOORI KHAS
IN CUSTODY SINCE
30.07.2006

OF THE ABOVE NAMED APPLICANT/ACCUSED PERSON FOR
PROVIDING HIM BEST MEDICAL TREATMENT BY HIS PARENTS TO
SAVE HIS LIFE
SIR,
police of P.S. KHAJOORI, who was arrested on
30.07.2006 and since then he is in J.C.
2 That the applicant/accused is suffering from
mental disorder and came under depression due
to which he is needy for proper medical
treatment so that the diseases of
applicant/accused could be cured as now a days
the accused is on wheel chair and he is needy
for best care and medical treatment.
3 That the parents of the applicant/accused want
to provide best medical treatment for the
accused so that his life can be saved otherwise
he may die without proper medicine and care.
4 That if the bail is not granted to the
applicant/accused the life of the

applicant/accused can come in danger as if the
proper treatment is not provided to him then he
may die.
offence as alleged upon him as he is victim of
circumstances.
false case.
India.
Prayer:
grant bail to the applicant/accused person
for his proper medical treatment so that his
life can be saved in this case, in the
Delhi:

(IN J.C.)
Through
(JAGMOHAN SINGH)
ADV.

INRE:
STATE V/S RAMAN SINGHLA
S/O SH. BABU RAM
R/O H.NO. 38, DAYANAND
VIHAR, DELHI-110092
FIR NO. 160/2010
U/S 279/304A IPC
P.S. MANDAWALI
IN J.C. 08.04.2010

SIR,

police of P.S. MANDAWALI and sent to J.C. on
08.04.2010, since then he is in custody.


false case as no accident took place by the
accused while unnecessary just to get
compensation the applicant/accused is being
implicated in the said false case



India.
Prayer:

Delhi:

(IN J.C.)
Through
(RAM KUMAR SHARMA)

ADV.
DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S SHEIKH ISLAM
S/O SHEIKH UMED
FIR NO. 128/2010
U/S 380/457 IPC
P.S. JYOTI NAGAR
IN J.C. 28.03.2010

SIR,

police of P.S. MAYUR VIHAR and sent to J.C. on


false case.



India.

Prayer:

Delhi:

(IN J.C.)
Through
(SANJAY BUDHIRAJA)
ADV.

INRE:
SHAMMI AKHTAR @ GUDDU V/S ANIL KUMAR & OTHERS
FIR NO. 284/2009
U/S 420/120-B IPC
P.S. SEEMA PURI
IN J.C. 05.04.2010

OF THE ABOVE NAMED APPLICANT/ACCUSED PERSON NAMELY ANIL
KUMAR
SIR,
1 That the applicant/accused has been falsely1

police of P.S. SEEMA PURI on instance of the


false case.



India.

Prayer:

Delhi:

(IN J.C.)
Through
(DEEPAK KUMAR) ADV.

IN THE COURT OF SH. LOKESH KUMAR MM KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S MURSALIM @ SALIM
FIR NO. 319/2000

U/S 25/54/59 A.ACT
P.S.SHAHDARA
D.O.H. 29.07.2010
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE THE FDR ISSUED BY UC BANK

OF RS. 7,000/- OF SURETY NAMED SAKIR S/O
KIFAYATULLA R/O R-204C, BRAHAMPURI, DELHI-110053

MURSALIM @ SALIM in this case which has been
fixed for 29.07.2010.
2 That the accused has changed his surety,

therefore the present surety wants to get the
above said FDR released in his favour.
Prayer:

justice.
Delhi:
THROUGH
COUNSEL
IN THE COURT OF MS SUNITA GUPTA LD. DISTT. & SESSION
JUDGE (DISTT. NORTH-EAST DELHI)
INRE:
STATE V/S DEEPAK @ DEEPU

FIR NO. 194/2004
U/S 394/397/34 IPC
P.S. SHAHDARA
D.O.H. 24.04.2010
APPLICATION FOR RECALLING THE ORDER OF

ATTACHMENT OF PROEPRTY OF THE
APPLICANT/SURETY OF ACCUSED SANJAY
SIR,
1 That due to non-appearance of accused Sanjay
S/o Sh. Raj Pal, this Hon’ble pleased to issue
NBW against the accused Sanjay as well as
notice U/s 446 Cr.P.C. against the
surety/applicant namely Om Prakash S/o Late
Sh. Ram Singh.
2 That on 22.03.2010, the applicant brought the
accused Sanjay for his production before this
Hon’ble court who moved an application for
cancellation of NBW, but the prayer of the
accused was turned down by this Hon’ble court
and he was taken into custody and sent to JC
and the applicant thought that because the
accused has been produced before this Hon’ble

court so his notice U/s 446 of Cr.P.C.
automatically would be cancelled and the
applicant could not file proper application for
recalling the notice U/s 446 Cr.P.C.
3 That now the applicant has appear before this
Hon’ble court in the notice issued by this
Hon’ble court and then it came to know that as
per record, the accused was not produced by the
applicant/surety.
Prayer:
this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to recall
the notice U/s 446 Cr.P.C. and recall the order of
attachment of the surety/applicant, in this case,
Delhi:
(OM PRAKASH)
S/O SH.RAM SINGH
IN THE COURT OF MS SUNITA GUPTA LD. DISTT. & SESSION
JUDGE (DISTT. NORTH-EAST DELHI)
INRE:
STATE V/S DEEPAK @ DEEPU

FIR NO. 194/2004
U/S 394/397/34 IPC
P.S. SHAHDARA
D.O.H. 24.04.2010
APPLICATION FOR RECALLING THE ORDER OF

ATTACHMENT OF PROEPRTY OF THE
APPLICANT/SURETY OF ACCUSED SANJAY
SIR,
1 That due to non-appearance of accused Sanjay S/o
Sh. Raj Pal, this Hon’ble pleased to issue NBW
against the accused Sanjay as well as notice U/s
446 Cr.P.C. against the surety/applicant namely
ASHOK S/o SH. RAJ PAL.
2 That on 22.03.2010, the applicant brought the
accused Sanjay for his production before this
Hon’ble court who moved an application for
cancellation of NBW, but the prayer of the accused
was turned down by this Hon’ble court and he was
taken into custody and sent to JC and the
applicant thought that because the accused has
been produced before this Hon’ble court so his

notice U/s 446 of Cr.P.C. automatically would be
cancelled and the applicant could not file proper
application for recalling the notice U/s 446
Cr.P.C.
3 That now the applicant has appear before this
Hon’ble court in the notice issued by this Hon’ble
court and then it came to know that as per record,
the accused was not produced by the
applicant/surety.
Prayer:
this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to recall
the notice U/s 446 Cr.P.C. and recall the order of
attachment of the surety/applicant, in this case,
Delhi:
(ASHOK)
S/O SH.RAJ PAL
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJEEV MEENA AD&SJ KKD COURTS,
DELHI
INRE:
SMT. KRISHNA V/S RAHUL GOEL

FIR NO. 146/2010
U/S 279/337 IPC
P.S. SHAKARPUR
D.O.H.18.09.2010
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED FOR GRANT


15.04.2010.
2 That the counsel for accused is unable to
is on bed rest, hence this application for
grant of exemption.
3 That the non-appearance of the counsel for
Prayer:

exemption in this case, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
Dated: 15.04.2010 Applicant/counsel
Through
(PROXY COUNSEL)
VED PRAKASH SINGH
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJEEV MEENA AD&SJ KKD COURTS,
DELHI
INRE:
SMT. KRISHNA V/S RAHUL GOEL

FIR NO. 146/2010
U/S 279/337 IPC
P.S. SHAKARPUR
D.O.H.18.09.2010
APPLICATION GIVING INFORMATION REGARDING APPEARANCE OF

ACCUSED BEFORE THIS COURT WITH LITTLE LATE ON BEHALF OF
DRIVER AND OWNER.

this Hon’ble Court and fixed was fixed for
15.04.2010.
2 That in the above noted case the
accused/applicants( driver and owner) could
not appear before this Hon’ble court in time
because the driver of the offending vehicle
was going to appear in his internal
examination at his college situated at Noida
And the owner of the offending vehicle was
also going to college of his son to take back
him to KKD Courts.
3 That when the accused persons appeared before
this Hon’ble court, their names had been
called and they were marked as absent.
4 That the non-appearance of the
applicant/accused persons was neither
intentional nor deliberate but due to the
above said reason.
Prayer:

court may kindly be pleased to take
appearance of accused persons in this case,
and they be marked as present in this case,
Delhi:
Dated: 15.04.2010 Applicants/accused
(RAHUL GOEL)
(KAMAL GOEL)
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATISH KUMAR ARORA MM KKD COURTS,
DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S SHER KHAN
S/O SH. SHABBIR
FIR NO. 107/2010
U/S 25/27 A.ACT
P.S. KALYAN PURI
IN J.C. 7.04.2010

SIR,

police of P.S. KALYAN PURI and sent to J.C. on

offence as alleged upon him as the accused was
going to shopping, where 10-12 persons
approached there and without any rhyme and
reason picked up quarrel with the
applicant/accused and thereafter he had been
implicated falsely in the said case, while the
applicant/accused was mercilessly beaten by the
said unknown persons.


false case.


India.

Prayer:

Delhi:

(IN J.C.)
Through
(RAM KUMAR SHARMA)

ADV.
APPLICATION UNDER R.T.I. ACT 2005
I.D. No.
For Office Use
To,

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
TOWN HALL, CHANDNI CHOWK,
DELHI-110006
Sir,
1 Name of applicant: SURYA KANT SHARMA

S/O LATE SH. DINESH KUMAR
SHARMA
R/O VILLAGE & POST-BANEL
DISTT. BULANDSHEHR, U.P.
ALSO AT: H.NO. 8/12, NEAR
HOLI WALA CHORAHA,JAMIRA BAD,
ALIGARH, U.P.
1 OFFIE OF MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION OF DELHI
TOWN HALL, CHANDNI CHOWK,
DELHI-110006
AND:
2 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
M.C.D. HORTICULTURAL ,
II ZONE, NEAR AMBEDKAR STADIUM
NEW DELHI
3 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
HORTICULTURAL II DEPARTMENT,
H.Q. ROSHANARA GARDEN, DELHI-7
1 Supply to me the information regarding the
application filed by the applicant on dt.
25.05.1998 and made several representation
orally and written to your organization till
the year 2009 for his appointment under
compassionate quota/ground in place of job of
father of applicant namely Dinesh Kumar Sharma,
who was appointed in your organization as
Gardner(Mali) and posted in Delhi, who was
expired on 13.04.1997 during the tenure of his
service.
A. Tell me what action has been taken on the

said application?
B. Tell me whether the job of deceased will
be given to applicant or not on
compassionate ground? If not, tell the
reason?
C. Tell me about status of the said
application, Whether the same is pending?
Or dispose off. If pending or disposed off
then tell about the reason.

A fee of Rs. 30/-(each department) has been

paid by postal order, if any more, the same
shall be paid later.
Delhi:
Dated:17.04.2010 Signature
SURYA KANT SHARMA

S/O LATE SH. DINESH KUMAR
SHARMA
R/O VILLAGE & POST-BANEL
DISTT. BULANDSHEHR, U.P.
ALSO AT: H.NO. 8/12, NEAR
HOLI WALA CHORAHA,JAMIRA BAD,
ALIGARH, U.P.
Copy to for information required:
1 PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

M.C.D. HORTICULTURAL,
II ZONE, NEAR AMBEDKAR STADIUM
NEW DELHI
2 PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER /ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

HORTICULTURAL II DEPARTMENT,
H.Q. ROSHANARA GARDEN, DELHI-7
IN THE COURT OF MS SARITA BIRNAL ASJ KKD COURTS, DELHI

INRE:
STATE V/S SUMAN MEENA & OTHERS
FIR NO. 444/2007
U/S 392/394/397/411/34
IPC
P.S. PREET VIHAR
D.O.H. 16.04.2010
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE THE PROPERTY DOCUMENTS OF
THE SURETY/APPLICANT NAMELY DIMPLE DUTT W/O SH.
MAHESH DUTT
HON’BLE MADAM,

Hon’ble court and fixed for today for
evidence.
Santosh and the original property documents
were retained with the judicial file at the
time of furnishing the bail bond.
3 That the applicant/surety applied for the
electricity connection and the officials of
BSES demanding the original papers which are
still lying with the judicial file by order
of this Hon’ble court.
4 That it is very difficult to the
applicant/surety to take BSES electric
connection in her premises without showing
original documents of the property to BSES
officials as original documents of the
property, are badly required to the
applicant/surety.
5 That if the original documents of property of
the surety is not released to him then the
applicant/surety shall suffer an irreparable
loss as during the period of summer
electricity is necessary for applicant/surety
and his other family members.
Prayer:

to release the original property documents of
the applicant/surety in this case, in the
Delhi
Through
Counsel
(S.K.SHUKLA)
IN THE COURT OF SH. A.K. AGGARWAL MM KKD COURTS, DELHI

INRE:
STATE V/S Rajeev Sharma

CHALLAN NO. 387991
U/S 115/190, MV ACT
VEHICLE NO. DL-5CC-
5613
D.O.CHALLAN 01.12.2008

SIR,
1 That I am the owner of the above noted which

was fixed for 01.12.2008 but due to some
unavoidable circumstances, the applicant could
not get the same disposed off, therefore now
the applicant being owner wants to pay the fine
by accepting his guilty.
prayer:

Delhi:
Dated: Applicant
(RAJEEV SHARMA)
INRE:
STATE V/S MEHBOOB ALI
FIR NO.
U/S
P.S. WELCOME
D.O.H. 16.04.2010
APPLICATION FOR PROVIDING MEDICAL

FACILITIES/TREATMENT TO THE ACCUSED
SIR,
It Is most respectfully submitted as under:
2 That in the above noted case the accused is in
J.C., while the accused is suffering from T.B.
disease and also he is drugs edict, therefore
the family members of accused wants the accused
be medically treated in the Judicial custody,
Prayer:

application and proper medical treatment be provided
to accused in J.C. in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
(IN J.C.)
THROUGH
COUNSEL
I.D. No.
For Office Use
To,

POLICE ANAND VIHAR
DISTT. EAST,
DEHLI-110092
Sir,
1 Name of applicant: RAM KUMAR SHARMA (ADVOCATE)

S/O SH. MAHAVIR SHARMA
R/O C/O JASWANT SINGH
H.NO. 226, MOHALLA DOONGER
FARSH BAZAR, SHAHDARA,
DELHI-110032
POLICE ANAND VIHAR
DISTT. EAST,
DEHLI-110092
1 Provide me the DD Entry No. in respect of

quarrel occurred before Room 30 of KKD Courts,
Delhi at about 10.10 AM on 14.01.2010.
2 Provide me the copy of MLC No. 109 dt.
14.01.2010 of Dr. HAS Hospital, Delhi.
3 Provide me statement of Sofia Garg.
4 Tell me what action has been taken by the
police on the complaint of complainant Sofia
Garg.

A fee of Rs. 10/- has been paid by IPO/cash.
Delhi:
Dated: Signature
RAM KUMAR SHARMA (ADVOCATE)

S/O SH. MAHAVIR SHARMA
R/O C/O JASWANT SINGH
H.NO. 226, MOHALLA DOONGER
FARSH BAZAR, SHAHDARA,
DELHI-110032
IN THE COURT OF MS SUNITA A.S.J. KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S SANJAY

FIR NO.
U/S 307 IPC
P.S. SHAHDARA
D.O.H.16.04.2010
APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURMENT IN THIS CASE ON BEHALF

ACCUSED

16.04.2010.
2 That the counsel for accused is unable to
is on bed rest, hence this application for
adjournment.
3 That the non-appearance of the counsel for
Prayer:

adjournment in this case, in the interest of
justice.
Delhi:
(SANJAY)
DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S RAKESH & OTHERS
FIR NO. 67/2009
U/S 302/365/201/34 IPC
P.S. KARAWL NAGAR
D.O.H. 16.04.2010
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED RAKESH FOR

SUPPLY THE COPY OF STATEMENT OF PW-2&3
SIR,

2 That on 16.04.2010, the statement of PW-1&2
have been recorded in this case, therefore the
accused above named want to take copy of
statement of PW-1&2.
Prayer:

application and copy of statement of PW-1&2 by
supplied to the accused, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
(JITENDER SIROHI)
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE ADDL. DISTT. & SESSION JUDGE
KKD COURTS, DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S GOPAL
S/O SH. DHARAMBIR
R/O 35/230, TRILOK PURI
DELHI-110091
FIR NO. 76/2010

U/S 392/397/34 IPC
P.S. MAYUR VIHAR
IN J.C. 7.03.2010

SIR,

police of P.S. MAYUR VIHAR on the instance of
the complainant i.e. owner of the Bus and has
been languishing in judicial custody since
07.03.2010.
2 That the contents of the FIR show that the

alleged incident has been cooked up by the
complainant and got registered a false case.



false case.
6 That the applicant is no more required for any

custodial interrogation as nothing to be
recovered from the possession of the accused or
his instance.



India.

Prayer:

Delhi:

(IN J.C.)
Through
(S.K.SINGH)
ADV.
I.D. No.
For Office Use
To,

MUNICIPAL COROPRATION OF DELHI
TOWN HALL, DELHI-110006
Sir,
1 Name of applicant: MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA (ADVOCATE)

K-86, 4TH FLOOR,
MOB.NO. 9213613448
OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER
TOWN HALL, DELHI-110006
1 Tell me How many contract have been given to

M/s Delhi Construction, A-25, Moti lal Road,
Adarsh Nagar, Delhi-110033?
2 Tell me How many bills was given to you by M/s
Delhi Construction, A-25, Moti lal Road, Adarsh
Nagar, Delhi-110033?
3 Tell me what is the amount of every bill?
4 Tell me which bills amount has been paid by you
to M/s Delhi Construction, A-25, Moti lal Road,
5 Tell me How many bills related to said M/s
Nagar, Delhi-110033 is pending towards you and
why?

A fee of Rs. 10/- has been paid by cash/IPO.
Delhi:
MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA (ADVOCATE)

K-86, 4TH FLOOR,
MOB.NO. 9213613448
I.D. No.
For Office Use
To,

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DIVISION-XII
8TH FLOOR, MSO BUILDING,
16, RAJPUR ROAD, DELHI-110054
Sir,

K-86, 4TH FLOOR,
MOB.NO. 9213613448
OFFICE OF:
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DIVISION-XII

why?

Delhi:

K-86, 4TH FLOOR,
MOB.NO. 9213613448
I.D. No.
For Office Use
To,

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DIVISION-XVI
OLD HINDU COLLEGE,
KASHMERE GATE, DELHI-110006
Sir,

K-86, 4TH FLOOR,
MOB.NO. 9213613448
OFFICE OF:
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DIVISION-XVI
1 Tell me How many contract have been given to M/s

4 Tell me which bills amount has been paid by you to
5 Tell me How many bills related to said M/s Delhi
Construction, A-25, Moti lal Road, Adarsh Nagar,
Delhi-110033 is pending towards you and why?

Delhi:

K-86, 4TH FLOOR,
MOB.NO. 9213613448
I.D. No.
For Office Use
To,

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RD-II
ROAD NO.44, VILLAGE PITAM PURA,
DELHI-110034
Sir,

K-86, 4TH FLOOR,
MOB.NO. 9213613448
OFFICE OF:
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RD-II
ROAD NO.44, VILLAGE PITAM PURA,
DELHI-110034

why?

Delhi:

K-86, 4TH FLOOR,
MOB.NO. 9213613448
IN THE COURT OF MS NISHA SAXENA A.S.J. (DISTT. NORTH
INRE:
STATE V/S GOPAL DAS

FIR NO. 293/2006
U/S 306/498A IPC
P.S.KHAJOORI KHAS
D.O.D. 13.07.2010
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE THE FDR OF RS. 25,000/-

OF SURETY SH. MOHAN DAS
1 That the above noted case has been decided by

this Hon’ble court on 13.07.2010.

GOPAL DASS in this case.
3 That at the time or producing bail bond an FDR

of Rs. 25,000/- had been deposited by the
applicant/surety before this Hon’ble court, and
as the case has been, then there is no need of
FDR in court cord, therefore the applicant
want to get FDR released in his favour.
Prayer:

release the said FDR in favour applicant/surety,
and the surety be discharged from his liabilities
Delhi:
(MOHAN DASS)
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTT. & SESSION JUDGE DISTT.

EAST, KKD COURTS DELHI
INRE:
STATE V/S IKRAM

S/O SH. M.I. ALI
R/O
FIR NO. 6/12

U/S 323/365/34 IPC
P.S.MANDAWALI

APPLICANT
SIR,

the above noted address.
2 That the applicant has been falsely
police of P.S. Mandawali, while the
applicant/has nothing to do with the offence
as alleged upon him as he is totally innocent
person and wants to become the applicant a
scape goat by the police.
4 That the applicant is not a previous convict,
having clean antecedents, he is a student.
5 That the other three co-accused namely Akbar
@ Dumpy, Manish Deda and Titu @ Raj Kumar
have been released on bail by Hon’ble court
of Sh. K.S. Paul, ASJ, KKD Courts, DELHI vide
order dt. 11.01.2012, 16.01.20121 AND
30.01.2012 respectively.
6 That the above noted applicant undertakes not
to tamper the prosecution evidence.
I.O.
Prayer:
prayed that this Hon’ble court may kindly sbe
applicants and direct the concerned IO/SHO to
Delhi:
Through
Counsel
Imran Khan
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUJEET SAURAB, MM KKD COURTS, DELHI

INRE:
STATE V/S JAWAHAR LAL

CHALLAN NO. 985362
VEHICLE NO. DL-1RK-9201
U/S 39/192, 7/177 M.V.ACT
CIRCLE NO. SHAHDARA
COURT DATE: 08.12.2011
APPLICATION FOR DISPOSAL OF CHALLAN FOR LOK ADALAT

SIR,

Hon’ble court and was fixed for 8.12.2011.
2 That the applicant is the rightful owner/DRIVER
of the said vehicle, and the applicant accept his
guilty and ready to pay the fine whatsoever shall
be imposed upon him therefore he wants that said
challan be sent to Lok Adalat for disposal, hence
this application.
prayer:
this application and challan be sent to Lok Adalat
for early disposal, in the interest of justice.
Delhi:
Dated: Applicant
Through
Counsel
IN THE MATTER OF
SH. MOHD. MIAN,
3/0 SH. MOHD. RPiZA,
R/O COY-SP (ASLT) 15 JAK RIF,
c/o 56 APO, DELHI CANTT-lO,
NEW DELHI
PLJNTIFF
VERSUS
S. UZMA HSAN w/o SH Q1MARUL HASNAIN R/O MOHALLA BAZAR,
VILLAGE & POST AGWAN PUR, P.S CIVIL LINES, TEHSIL &
DISTT. MORADABAD, U.P-244502,
...DEFENDANT
SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF DIVORCE
HON’BLE SIR,
1. That the plaintiff is a peace loving and law abiding
citizen. He is gullible person and belongs to a
respectable family of the society and he is residing at
the above mentioned address.
2. That the plaintiff got married with the defendant on
25.06.2009 according to Muslim rites and customs and no
dowry was ever been demanded and given by any of the
party.
3. That since the marriage behaviour of the defendant
not proper towards the plaintiff and his other family
members and relatives and never cared the sentiments of
the plaintiff despite the plaintiff always tried his
best to provide each and every facility in his capacity
due to the love and affection, as the plaintiff loved
the defendant with deep core of his heart.
4. That the defendant always try to torture mentally,
physically and economically to the plaintiff by way of
defendant’s cruel acts towards the plaintiff, but the
plaintiff avoid defendant’s adamant behaviour only in
hope that once a day good sense would be prevailed upon
the defendant, but of no use.
5. That the defendant threatened the plaintiff to
implicate him and his family members in false dowry
demand cases as and when the plaintiff opposed
defendant’s cruel behaviour and acts and all on ill
advises of defendant’s parents and the defendant
used to demand share in the household property of the
plaintiff.
6. That it is pertinent to mention here that previously
the defendant and the plaintiff were residing at the
native place of the plaintiff, as the plaintiff was
posted at there and thereafter the plaintiff brought
the defendant to Delhi, as the plaintiff transferred to
Delhi Cantt., New Delhi.
7. That on 01.11.2009, the defendant went to
defendant’s parental home without the permission of the
plaintiff and the plaintiff again brought to the
defendant at defendant’s matrimonial home and the
defendant raised the illegal and unwarranted demands to
the plaintiff to leave his job and to stay wi.th the
defendant at defendant’s parental home.
8. That finally on 29.03.2011, the defendant has left
defendant’s matrimonial home with defendant’s minor
child Mohd. Rusaf alongwith all jewellary articles,
costly clothes and other valuable articles from the
house of the plaintiff, when the plaintiff had gone to
his job/service.
9. That the plaintiff alongwith his parents and
respectable persons of the locality, visited to the
parental home of the defendant to brought the defendant
back and requested the defendant to join the society of
the plaintiff, but now when the plaintiff reached to
defendant’s parental home, the defendant flatly refused
to join the matrimonial life with the plaintiff,
despite the plaintiff tried his level best to sort out
the matter on several occasion, but all gone in vain.
10. That thereafter the plaintiff filed a petition for
restitution of conjugal rights against the defendant at
Moradabad, U.P, but she is not ready to join the
company of the petitioner and the petitioner has
withdrawn his case. 1l. That by this act and attitude
of the defendant, it is crystal clear that the
defendant is not willing to join the martial life with
the plaintiff, hence the plaintiff has given divorce to
the defendant on telephone in the presence of marginal
witnesses by saying that ‘UZMA
HASAN MAIN TUJHE TALAQ DETA HOON”, “UZMA HASAN MAIN
TUJHE TALAQ DETA HOON”, “UZMA HASAN MAIN TUJHE TALAQ
DETA HOON”.
12. That the plaintiff has divorced to the respondent
according to Muslim rites and customs and now there is
no relationship as husband and wife. The plaintiff has
sent a Demand Draft No.593060 of Rs.l0,000/— towards
maintenance of IDDAT Period to the defendant.
13. That the plaintiff has also sent a legal notice to
the defendant on 11.05.2011 by registered A.D. and
courier/speed post, alongwith the copy of Talaqnama,
and the service of the said legal notice also effected
to the defendant. The copy of the same is enclosed
herewith.
Vijay rana
,,,,,,
IN THE COURT OF SH. REETESH SINGH,LD. ADJ, KARKARDOOMA

COURT, DELHI V
In Ref: SUIT NO. 51/20ö8
IN THE MATTER OF:
AKHILESH SHARMA V PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KANTA PRASAD DEFENDANT
D.O.H. : 07-04- V 201.2
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 7, RULE 1V1 READWITH
SECTION 151 OF C.P.C. ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT.
Hon’ble Sir,
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH AS UNDER:
1. That the above noted civil suit is pending for
adjudication before the Hon’ble Court and same is
fixed for evidence. V V V
2. That the suit filed by plaintiff is gross abus of
process of law and liable tO be dismissed because same
is without cause of action. V V
3. That in the suit for specific performance plaintiff
must have his real intention to purchase the V property
but on reading the aforesaid pIint it
seems that the plaintiff has V not come with dean hand
before Hon’ble Court and want to extort money from the
defendant nd tO ,achieve his illegal target he has
tiled present suit against defendant.
4. That the plaintiff along with copy of plaint has
filed the irrevocable General Power of Attorney which
got prepared in the name of Mukesh and Amit to purchase
the property in question from the defendant and this
IRREVOCABLE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY has bear stamp
paper of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only). The
IRREVOCABLE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
specify, the plaintiff want to purchase the property in
question on payment of Rs.60,000/- to the defendant and
this document clearly establish that he do not have any
intention to make the payment of Rs.7,20,000/-. to
defendant on 3O-O&-2OO7 or other further dates which he
mentioned in his plaint. Hence, the plaintiff have
dishonest intention behind filing the present suit and
has evil eyes on the property of. the defendant hence
the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
5. That the plaintiff in his plaint has specified that
the defendant has to execute the sale deed of property
in questioin in favour of Mukesh and Amit on payment of
remaining amount of Rs.7,20,000/- and this is a
admission an part of the. plaintiff tl4at as a person
he do not want to purchase the property and he was
acting only as an agent of Mukesh and Amit, hence,
plaintiff do not have any locus standil to file the
present suit against the defendant.
6. That in the above noted suit the plaintiff has not.
disclosed in his plaint that whether he h arrangement
of Rs.7,20,000/- and he has not disclosed the bank
account no. where he put Rs.7,20,000/- for the payment
of amount through which plaintiff may be able to get
the registry / saledeed in favour of Amit Khemka and
Mukesh but the plaintiff in present suit has not filed
any document which establish that he has Rs.7,20,000/-
on dated 30-.06-2007 to make payment to defendant.
Hence, the present suit is liable to be dismissed and
plaintiff is unnecessary harassing the defendant.
7. That the plaintiff in his plaint and the documents
filed along with plaint has completely failed to
establish that there was any privity of contract
between the defendant and the Mukesh and Arnit,. and on
the basis of oral agreement suit of specific
performance is not maintainable and same is liable to
be dismissed.
It is therefore, most humbly prayer to kiricily pass an
order to dismiss the suit filed by plaintiff, in
……………………
IN THE COURT OF SH. REETESH SINGH LD. ADJ,

KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI
InRef: SUITNO.51/2008
IN THE MATTER OF:
AKHILESH SHARMA PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KANTA PRASAD . DEFENDANT
D.O.H. : 07-04- 2012
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 11, RULE 1, 2 & 14,
READ WITH SECTTOIN 151 OF C.P.C. ON BEHALF OF
DEFENDANT.
Hon’ble Sir,
It is submitted as under:-
1. That the above noted case is pending for
adjudication before Hon’ble Court and same is fixed for
plaintiff’s evidence.
2. That the defendant want to put certain
interrogatcries before the plaintiff with the leave of
the Hon’ble Co.irt because it would assist the Hon’ble
Court in proper adjudication of the present matter and
it would minimize the evidence and time of the Honbie
Court wpuld be save if. the defendant grant leave.
3. That the following are the interrogatories of which
defendant want answer from the plaintiff by filing of
affidavit, as per rule prescribed Code of Civil
Procedure:
A. That the plaintiff is required to specify whether he
know that on dated 04-01-2007 at the time of writing of
agreement of earnest money in respect of the property
in question, the Amit Khemka was present- on that day
or not.
B. ‘ That the plaintiff is required to answer whether
he has the knowledge that the defendant has mortgaged
the property no. C-44/222, Gali No. 16, Shivaji Marg,
Kartar Nagar, Delhi-53 to’ Sh. Amit Khemka.
C. That the plaintiff is required to answer
whether the Amit Kuinar in whose name be
has purchased the stamp paper ‘of
IRREVOCABLE GENERAL POWER OF
ATTORNEY to execute the Sale deed of
property in question and Amit Khemka to
whom the property was mortgaged by
defendant on 05-01-2007 are the same
person.
D. The plaintiff is required to answer whether
Amit Kumar ‘whose name be has mentioned
in his plaint has tiled a civil suit for specific
performance, possession and for permanent
injunction against the defendant on the
same property in question for which
present suit has been filed by plciintiff.
Please give your answer in yes or no. if yes;
Then please specify whether the
plaintiff has the knowledge that the
AmIt Kumar has received a
Rs.3,00,000/-from the defendant and
after receiving of Rs.3,00,000/- he hashanded over the
origina:1 papers of property in quçstion to defendant
on dated 03-11-2Ollbefore the court of
Sh. Anand Swaroop Aggarwal, Senior
Civil Judge, East, Karkardooma Court,
Delhi.
E. The plaintiff is required to answer the name
of the person who written from pen at the
bottom of 1st page of Bayana Agreement
and he also required to specify, that why
there is no signature of defendant at the
bottom of 1st page of Bayana Agreement.
F. That the plaintiff is required to specify that
at the bottom of the 1st page of typed
•Bayana Agreement, there is signature of
defendant only and thereafter some lines
written through pen at below the signature
of defendant, there is signature of plaintiff
oily, hence, please specify whether the
lines written through pen at the bottom of
1 page was written by you in absence of
defendant and without the knowledge of.the
defendant. If no,
Then specify that why at the bottom of
lines written through pen there is no
signatures of defendant.
G. That the plaintIff is required to specify that
when he receivedlega1 notice dated 30-06-
2007 of counsel of defendant Sh. Abmed Mi
Khan then what be did in response and
also specify whether plaintiff’s send any
reply of notice dated 30-06-2007 or not, if
yes; Then please supply me the copy of the
reply send by the’ plaintiff to the
defendant if no then specify the
reason for not giving the reply of
tiotice dated 30-06-2007.
H. That the .plaintiff is required to specify
whether it is correct that in the
IRREVOCABLE GENERAL POWER OF
ATtORNEY which he has filed before the
Hon’ble Court to show that he purchased
the stamp papers in the name of Mukesh
and Arnit to purchase the property in
question from defendantds specify that the
Mukesh and Amit has purchased the
property from the defendant only on
Rs.60,000/- not on Rs.7,70,000/-.
That the plaintiff is required to specify whether he
has Rs.7,20,000/- on 30-06- 2007 in his bank account or
not, if yes;
Then give the account no and name of the branch and
bank, where plaintiff has put Rs.7,20,0O0/ to make the
payment to defendant;
Ifno;
Then the plaintiff should ified any document which
establish that he has Rs.7,20,000/- in his hand to make
the payment to the defendant and he s required to
clisbiose his source of fund through which he obtained
Rs.7,20,000/- to make the payment to defendant. J. That
the. plaintiff is required to give the answer whether
any agreement was made between the plaintiff and the
defendant that the sale deed of the property would be
executed in favour of Amit Kumar and Mukesh
K. That the plaintiff is required to answer whether at
the time of payment of Bayana Amount he entered into an
agreement with the defendant as the capacity. of agent
of Arnit Kumar and Mukesh or. he as a person want to
purchase the property in his own name.
L. That the plaintiff is required to answer when he
received the notice dated 30-06- 2007 from the
defendant then intead of sending the reply and settling
the dispute with defendant why he went to sub-
registrar office on dated 03-07-2007.
M. That the plaintiff is required to specify that when
he has no personal interest in the suit property and
Atnit Kumar and Mukesh has the personal interest in the
property in question and in the plaint he described,
that these both persons were the buyer then why also.
he filed the suit against the defendant and Azrilt and
Mukesh have not filed the suit against the defendant
despite of having personal ihtèrest.
N. That the plaintiff is required to specify whether it
is correct that you (plaintiff) Mukesh and Amit want to
dispossess thedefendant from the property in question
only on payment of Rs..60,000/-.
0. That the plaintiff is required to specify
•when the sale amount of the property in question was
fixed at Rs.7,70,000/- then why he shown the sale
amount of Rs.60,OOO/- only in IRREVOCABLE GENERAL POWER
OF ATIORNEY.
4. That all the above noted interrogatories are
relevant and all these are material and on the basis of
facts and no interrogatories is irrelevant.
It is therefore, most humbly prayer to kindly pass• an
order to allow the present application and direct the
plaintiff to give reply of each interrogatories of
defendant as per procedure define in CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, in the interest of justice.
Place Delhi
Dated:3f/
THROUGH
COUNSEL
Sk shukla
…………..
Imram
20.05.2012 at about 10.00 AJ4. and started throwing the

household goods of the plaintiff from the suit property
by force illegally but due to intervention of the
neighbours, they could not succeed to dispossess the
plaintiff from, the suit property.. The defendant and
his son Ba,nna threatened the plaintiff tQ dispossess
him from the suit property by force illegally without
due process of law at any time while the plaintiff has
all right, title or interest in the suit property and
in peaceful possession of the suit prQperty since long.
7. That the defendant is going to sell the suit
property to some property dealer/builder of
the area and the defendant wants to dispossess the
plaintiff from the suit prQperty by force
at any time.
8. That the abovesa,id acts and action on the part of
the defendant is wrong, illegal, malafi,de,
uncalled for and unwarranted as such as the plaintiff
is in peaceful possession of the suit property and
cannot be evicted from the suit property.
Contd...4
9. That the plaintiff has no other efficacious reraedy
except to approach to this Ron’ble Court through this
suit, hence this suit.
10. That the cause of action arose for filing the
present suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant on various occasions when the defendant
alongwith his son arrna tried to dispossess the
plaintiff frQtn. the suit property. The cause of action
arose on 20.05.2012, when the defendant alongwith his
3on B-anna and other associates started throwing the
household articles at the plaintiff from the suit
property and tried to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff
frQm the suit property but due to intervention of the
neighbours, the defendant could not succeed to
dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property, so
they threatened the plaintiff to dispossess the
plaintiff from the suit property. The cause of action
is still subsisting in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendant as the threat of the defendant is
continuing.
Contd...5
Kanhi lal
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SIIANKER, ADM. CIViL JUDGE

KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELhI
In the matter of:
KUALID
.PLAINTIF1i
V/s
NAZREEN @ NELIA RAN! AND OThERS
• . DEFENDANTS
)
Written statement on behalf of the defendant No.1 to 3
to the suit for restitution of conjugal rights and
permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff.
Most respectfully showeth: -
Preliminary objections.
1 The suit tiled h the plaintiff is against the
principal of the law and also not maintainable in the
eves of the law hence same is liable to be dismissed.
2. That the plaintiff has not approach to this hon’ ble
court with clean hands and suppressed to material fact
hence the present suit is not maintainable and is
liable to be dismissed.
3. That the plaintiff’ has no locus standi to file the
present suit as such is not maintainable and is liable
to be dismissed.
4. That no cause of action ever arose in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defended hence the present
suit is not main table and liable to be dismiss.
5. That that the plaintiff not taken the sound
concerned of the defended No.1 and all the proceeding
of alleged marriage is false and fabricated and the
consent of defendant no. ‘as obLained under the
pressure. force of the plaintiff, even she was have no
knowledge about any Muslim customs and rites, e’ven
otherwise she was no knowicdg about the registration of
alleged marriage. REPLY ON MERITS:L That the Para no. I
of the suit is wrong and specifically denied. It is
wrong and
specifically denied that the marriage between the
plaintiff or the defendant no.1 on 15/07/2011 according
to any Muslim Rites and Customs at address as alleged
or the alleged nikah was registered with Sub Registrar
at Ghaziabad, U.P. according to law. It is submitted
that the plaintiff not taken the sound concerned of the
defended No. 1 and all the proceeding of alleged
marriage is false and fabricated and the consent of
defendant no. 1 was obtained under the pressure, force
of the plaintiff, even she was have no knowledge about
any Muslim customs and rites, even otherwise she was no
knowledge about the registration of alleged marriage.
It is further submitted that the defendant no.1 have no
knowledge about the same and she is not having any
knowledge of the Muslim Religion and she is a pre
mature girl and studying in class Xth and she is not a
sound mind and she was only signed some documents as
per direction of the plaintiff which was obtained under
the pressure, force and influence from the side of the
plaintiff and his associates. However, it is submitted
that registrar of Ghaziabad have no jurisdiction to
register any marriage which was solemnized at Delhi,
which proves that same is false and fabricated
document.
2. That the Para no.2 of the suit is wrong and
specifically denied up to the extent that the plaintiff
and the defendant no.1 loved with each other. However,
it is not denied that the plaintiff belongs to Islam
and defendant no.1 belongs to Hindu. It is vrong and
specifically denied that the defendant no. 1 changed
her religion as alleged. It is submitted that the
defendant no.1 have no knowledge about the same and she
is not having any knowledge of the Muslim Religion and
she is a pre mature girl and studying in class Xth and
she is not a sound mind and she was only signed some
documents as per direction of the plaintiff which was
obtained under the pressure, force and influence from
the side of the plaintiff and his associates. It is
submitted that in the reply of the rest Para, the
defendant no. 2 and 3 have no knowledge about the
alleged marriage. Even the defendant no. 2 and 3 come
to know about this illegal and unlawful marriage when
they received the notice of this Hon’ble Court and then
they asked about the same from the defendant no. 1 then
she disclose that she have no knowledge about the said
illegal marriage and the plaintiff and his associates
were taken her signature under force, pressure and
influence.
3. That the Para no. 3 of the suit is not denied up to
the extent regarding the majority of the defendant no.
1. It is wrong and specifically denied that the
defendant no.1 was not in any pressure or threats or
undue influence or coercion for the alleged marriage or
th defendant no.1 was in any good sense or was not
suffering from ‘any mental disorder or insanity. It is
submitted that that the defendant no. 1 ha\ e no
knowledge about the same and she is not having any
knowledge of the Muslim Religion and she is a pre
mature girl and studying in class Xth and she is not a
sound mind and she was nnlv signed some documentsas per
direction of the plaintiff which was obtained under the
pressure, force and influence from the side of the
plaintiff and his associates.
4. That the Para no. 4 of the suit is wrong and
specifically denied. It is wrong and specifically
denied that the defendant no.1 joined any matrimonial
home of the plaintiff at any point of time or she
consummated the marriage as alleged or the plaintiff
provided any sorts or comforts. It is submitted that
the defendant no.1 never visited the house of the
plaintiff at any point of time and the allegation of
consummation of marriage are totally false, frivolous
and concocted one with a view to take undue advantages.
It is further submitted that the question of born of
any child is not attracted as the alleged marriage was
never consummated between the plaintiff and the
defendant no.1 at any point of time.
5. That the Para no.5 of the suit is wrong and
denied that the defendant no. 2 or 3 came to know that
the defendant no. 1 has solemnization of any nikah with
the plaintiff on 22/07/20 1 1 or the defendant no. 2 or
3 along with their relatives approached to the house of
plaintiff or requested him or his family members to
sent the defendant no.1 with them or they will sent
their daughter before society so that their prestige
will continue good in the society or the plaintiff or
his family members seeing the situation or for the sake
of welfare of plaintiff or defendants sent the
defendant no. I with the defendant no. 2 or 3 with any
hope that within one week the defendant no. 2 or 3 will
sent the defendant no.1 to her matrimonial home as
alleged. It is submitted that no such incident took
place at any point of time, ven the defendant no.2 or 3
never visited the house of the plaintiff or meet with
his family members. It is submitted that , the
defendant no. 2 and 3 have no knowledge about the
alleged marriage. Even the defendant no. 2 and 3 come
to know about this illegal and unlawful marriage when
they received the notice of this T--lon’ble Court and
then they asked about the same from the defendant no. 1
then she disclose that she have no knowledge about the
said illegal marriage and the plaintiff and his
associates were taken her signature under force,
pressure and influence.
denied that defendant no.1 visited an matrimonial home
as alleged or the plaintiff approached to parental home
of the defendant no.1 or requested to the defendant no.
2 or 3 to sent the defendant no. 1 or they could live
their marital life or the defendant no. 2 or 3 or did
not sent the defendant no.1 to her matrimonial or she
always gave her willing to join the company of the
plaintiff. It is submitted that no such incident took
place at any point of time and the plaintiff never
visited the house of the defendants as alleged, hence
the question of sending or non sending of the defendant
no. 1 did not arise.
7. lhat the Para no.7 of the suit is wrong and
specifically denied for wants of kno\\lede up to the
extent, However, it is wrong and specifically denied
that on29/07/201 1 plaintiff gave any information to
the defendant no. 1 or her family members at any point
of time or defendant no. 2 or 3 gave any assurance as
alleged to the plaintiff that after coming from the
Saudi Arab the defendant no. 1 will be sent to her
matrimonial home. It is submitted that no such incident
took place at any point of time and same is the
concocted story planned by the plaintiff with his own
version.
denied that plaintiff approached to parental home of
the defendant no.1 on 26/01/12 or defendant no. 2 or 3
refused as alleged or gave any threats as alleged or
plaintiff stated that the defendant no. 1 is the
legally wedded wife of the plaintiff as alleged or she
was agree to join the company of the plaintiff or the
defendant no. 2 or 3 misbehaved or create any hindrance
with the plaintiff. It is submitted that no such
incident took place at any point of time and same is
the concocted story ,planned by the plaintiff with his
own version.
9. That the Para no. 9 of the Suit 5 wrong and hence
denied. It is wrong and specifically denied that on
26/01/2012 or 30/01/2012 14/02/2012, defendant no. 1
sent any letter to the plaintiff or she stated as
alleged3hat she is willing to join the company of the
plaintiff or the defendant no. 2 or 3 stop her to join
the company of the plaintiff or she mentioned that her
parents can solemnize her marriage with other Hindu
boy. At any point of time and same is the concocted
story planned by the plaintiff it is submitted that no
such incident took place with his own version. Even the
defendant no.1 never wrote any letter as alleged to the
plaintiff.
denied that plaintiff or defendant no. 1 love with each
other or defendant no. 2 or 3 detained the defendant
no.1. It is submitted that defendant no.1 is not having
any love affair with the plaintiff and she is a pre
mature girl and study in class Xth. It is submitted
that no such incident took place at any point of time
and same is the concocted story planned by the
plaintiff with his own version.
denied that there is no son as alleged or the defendant
no.1 is under any influence of her parents or her
brother. However it is correct that the defendant no. I
refused to join the company of the plaintiff as there
is no relation between each other like husband and wife
or any other. Even the plaintiff never approached to
the parents of defendant no.1 as alleged.
denied that no such cause of action arose as alleged at
any point of time in favour of the plaintiff or against
the defendant, however the contents of the answering
Para are totally false, frivolous and concocted one and
reply inbrief has already been given in above answering
Para’s. It is submitted that no such cause of aotion
arose in favour of the plaintiff or against the
defendants.
13. That the Para no. 13 of the suit is wrong and hence
denied. It is wrong and hence denied that the plaintiff
or the defendant no.1 resided as husband or wife in
Delhi as alleged. It is submitted that the plaintiff
and the defendant no. 2 never residing as husband and
wife in Delhi or any other place of India at any point
of time and same is false and concocted contents.
14. That the Para no. 14 is matter of record.
Last Para is the prayer clause to this Hon’ble Court
and same is wrong and specifically denied with its sub
Para no. A to C. It is wrong and specifically denied
that plaintiff is liable to grant any decree of
restitution of conjugal rights in his favour or against
the defendant no. 1 as alleged. It is submitted that
the plaintiff is not liable to grant any decree as
alleged as the marriage in question is an illegal and
unlawful marriage and against the principle of law. It
is further wrong and denied that the defendant no. 2 or
3 restrained to solemnization of the marriage of the
defendant no. 1 or interfere in the same. It is
submitted that the plaintiff is not liable to grant any
such decree in his favor or against the defendants. It
is further submitted that the defendant no.2 or 3 have
no knowledge about this illegal marriage and when they
received the notice of Hon’ble court came to know about
this illegal marriage.
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the suit
of the plaintiff may please be dismissed with heavy
cost and he may please be directed not interfere in the
life of all the defendants and they may please be
allowed to live like an independent citizen without any
coercion or threats of plaintiff or his associates.
— / 3l (4 ‘
DEFENDAth NO. 1 TO 3
‘I’IIROLIGII
DELIII/DT.
COUNSEL
VERIFICATION:Verified at Delhi on this day of May, 2012
that the Para no. Ito 6 of the preliminary
objection are true and correct best of our knowledge
and the Para no. 1 to l3of the reply on merits are true
and correct as per our information given and the Para
no. 14 is the legal Para and last is the prayer clause
to this Ron’ ble court.
1)EFENDANT NO. 1 TO 3
IN TIlE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SIIANKER, ADM. CIVIL JUDGE
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELhI
In the matter of:
KIJALID
.PLAINTIFF
V/s
NAZREEN NEIIA RANI AND OTHERS
DEFENDANTS
Reply to the application on behalf of the defendants to
the application filed by the plaintiff.
Most respectfully Shpweth:Preliminary Objections:
1. Thai the application filed by the plaintiff against
the law and same is not maintainable in the eyes of
law, hence the same is liable to he dismissed.
2. Thai the plaintiff has not approached with clean
hands and suppressed true material facts from this
Hon’ble Court.
3. Thai the defendants have been mentally harassed and
tortured by filing this false suit with a view to take
undue advantages of his own wrongs.
Reply on merits:
1. That the Para no. I of the application is wrong and
hence denied. It is wrong and specifically denied that
the plaintiff got any married with the defendant no.1
on 15/07’201 I according to any Muslim rites or
ceremonies at any address as alleged or same is with
any free will or consent of defendant no.1 or any
marriage was solemnized between the plaintiff or the
defendant no. 1 at any point of time or out of alleged
wedlock any male child was born or whom is in the
custody of defendant no.1. It is submitted that no such
marriage was solemnized between the plaintiff or the
defendant no.1 with any consent or will of the
defendant no.1 and the alleged marriage was not
consummated between the plaintiff and the defendant
no.1, so question of born of any child does not arose
and in brief it is alread been submitted with the
written statement. 2. That the Para no.2 of the
application need no reply. however the defendant given
the reply in brief in their accompanying written
statement.
3. That the Para no. 3 of the application is wrong and
hence denied. It is wrong and specifically denied that
the defendant no.1 on the instigation of the defendant
no. 2 or 3 is not living with the plaintiff or the
defendant no. 2 or 3 has extended threats to solemnized
the second marriage of the defendant no. I with any
another person. It is submitted that the defendant no.2
or 3 have no knowledge about this illegal marriage and
when they received the notice of the Hon’ble court came
to know about this illegal marriage, however the
alleged marriage is the illegal and unlawful marriage
in which the consent of the defendant no.1 obtained
under force, pressure and coercion by the plaintiff and
his associates.
4. That the Para no.4 of application is wrong and hence
denied. It is wrong and hence denied that any balance
of convenience lies in favor of the plaintiff or
against the defendants. It is submitted that no such
balance of convenience lies in favor of the plaintiff
or against the defendants.
5. That the Para no. 5 of the application is wrong and
hence denied. It is wrong and hence denied that the
plaintiff shall suffer any irreparable loss or injuries
as alleged. It is submitted that the application of the
plaintiff is not maintainable and same is liable to be
dismissed as he filed the same with a view to mentally
harass to all the defendants with his malafide and
dishonest intention.
Last Para is the prayer clause to this Hon’ble Court
and same is wrong and specifically denied. It is wrong
and specifically denied that the defendant no. 2 or 3
restrained to solemnization of the marriage of the
defendant no.1 or interfere in the same. It is
submitted that the plaintiff is not liable to grant any
decree as alleged as the marriage in question is an
illegal and unlawful marriage and against the principle
of law. It is submitted that the plaintiff is not
liable to grant any such decree in his favor or against
the defendants. It is further submitted that the
defendant no.2 or 3 have no knowledge about this
illegal marriage and when they received the notice of
Hon’ble court came to know about this illegal marriage.
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the
application of the plaintiff may please be dismissed
with heavy cost and he may please be directed not
interfere in the life of all the defendants and they
may please be allowed to live like an independent
citizen without any coercion or threats of plaintiff or
his associates.
DEFENDANT NO. 1 rro 3
T1IROIJGII
DEIIII/DT.
COUNSEL
…………………..
3. That out of the above wedlock one male child was

born out namely Laksh Sumit (Son) aged about 6 years
old and he is studying in 1st standard.
4. That the petitioner and his family members never
demanded dowry articles and money from the respondent
and her family members, it is only the respondent who
never paid loyalty towards the petitioner and his
family members. From the very first day after
solemnization of the marriage, the respondent started
harassing the petitioner and his family members without
any fault of them. The
respondent never did any work and used filthy language
against the petitioner and his family members without
any reason.
5. That seeing such type of attitude and behavior of
the respondent, the petitioner along with respondent
remained separately from his family members at another
place at C—8, East Gokalpur, Amar Colony, Main Road,
Delhi-110094 but the attitude and
,-
behavior of the respondent was not changed there, the
respondent always used to threaten the petitioner and
his family members to implicate them in false cases.
6. That without any reasonable ground, the respondent
had withdrawn herself from the society of the
petitioner and the respondent left the home of the
petitioner with all her ornaments like one gold chain,
ring, jhumki and wearing clothes and the respondent has
been living separately at her parental house since
09.08.2011 that the respondent was in the habit of
leaving the matrimonial house without the consent of
the petitioner.
7. That the petitioner has been visited personally
several times at the parental house of the respondent
for taking back but the respondent always refused to do
so.
8. That the respondent and her family members are
threatening to the petitioner to implicate in
falsecases and despite of it, the petitioner wants to
keep the respondent so that the life of respndent and
their child, who is ill now a days, my’’ot be spoiled.
9. That the petitioner has no other officious remedy
except to approach this Hon’ble court by the present
petition.
10. That the petitioner has not in any manner condoned
the cruel acts of the respondent.
11. That there has not been any unnecessary or improper
delay in filing the present petition.
12. That there is no other ground why the relief should
not be granted to the petitioner.
13. That the parties to the petition are lastly
residing within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court,
hence this court has got the
original, ordinary territory jurisdiction to try and
entertain the present petition.
14. That the proper court fee has been affixed on the
face of the
.4 present petition.
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this I-
Ion’ble court may please to pass a decree of
restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the
petitioner and against the respondent, in the interest
of justice.
Delhi Petitioner
Dated: 07. 12.2011
Through
Counsel

Untitled

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE EVENING

COURT NO.2, KKD COURTS, DELHI

HDFC BANK V/S MAHESH GARG

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED MAHESH GARG FOR GRANT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble

Dated: 17.04.2010 Applicant/accused

RAJESH KUMAR PURI V/S SOHAN SINGH

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED BRIJ BHUSHAN FOR GRANT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble

(KAMAL KANT TRIPATHI)

STATE V/S KAWARJEET SINGH & OTHERS

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS NAMELY

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1 That the above noted case is pending before

2 That the applicants/accused person are unable

3 That the non-appearance of the applicants/

STATE V/S KAWARJEET SINGH & OTHERS

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS NAMELY ARUN

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1 That the above noted case is pending before

2 That the applicants/accused person are unable

3 That the non-appearance of the applicants/

IN THE COURT OF MS SUCHI SHAHMIRI MM KKD COURTS, DELHI

STATE V/S KAWARJEET SINGH & OTHERS

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS NAMELY AMAR

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1 That the above noted case is pending before

2 That the applicant/accused is unable to

3 That the non-appearance of the applicant/

STATE V/S SUMIT & SHASHI @ OTHERS

APPLICATION UNDER SECTIOIN 205 CR.P.C. FOR GRANT OF ON

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1 That the above noted case is pending before this

ICICI BANK LTD. V/S ANITA GOEL

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED ANITA GOEL FOR GRANT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1 That the above noted case is pending before this

It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble court

Dated: 12.03.2010 APPLICANT/ ACCUSED

THE COURT OF MS SHIVALI SHARMA MM KKD COURTS, DELHI

SUNITA JAIN V/S ASHFAQ KHAN

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED SUNITA JAIN FOR GRANT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1 That the above noted case is pending before this

It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble court

Dated: 12.03.2010 APPLICANT/ COMPLAINANT

IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K.KHANNA A.S.J. KKD COURTS,

STATE V/S PRASHANT AGGARWAL

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT SMT. RAJBALA /PW-3

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

That the above noted case is pending before this

It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble court

STATE V/S RITA & OTHERS

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED GUDDU FOR GRANT OF

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

That the above noted case is pending before this

It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble court

Dated: 20.02.2010 APPLICANT/ accused

TATA MOTORS LTD V/S VIJAYU KUMAR AGGARWAL

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED VIJAYU KUMAR AGGARWAL

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: