Delhi High Court
Zakir Hussain vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 22 January, 2025
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 19.12.2024
Judgment pronounced on: 22 .01.2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 1418/2024
ZAKIR HUSSAIN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Aditya Aggarwal and Ms
Ruchika, Advs.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP for State
with SI Vikas, ISC/Crime
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
JUDGMENT
: JASMEET SINGH, J
1. This is a petition filed under section 439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure (“Cr.P.C”) seeking regular bail in FIR bearing No.
0142/2022 dated 18.07.2022 under section 18/21/25/29 of Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”) PS
Crime Branch, New Delhi.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The facts of the case are that a secret information was received on
17.07.2022 at around 07:25 PM that one person namely Firoz along
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1418/2024 Page 1 of 20
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:22.01.2025
15:44:47
with other persons would come in Bolero car bearing no.
HR02AM5455 to supply opium/heroine at Dhuala Kuan, Delhi Cant.
area. The said information was reduced into writing after informing
ACP who gave direction to raid and take appropriate action.
3. One raiding team was constituted and the same left for the spot. When
they reached the Dhaula Kuan Bus Stand, the SI introduced the
raiding team to 4-5 passers-by requesting them to join as independent
witnesses, but all of them denied citing justified compulsion. At 9:45
PM, the raiding team reached the spot and took their positions.
4. At around 11:15 PM, they saw a Bolero car bearing no.
HR02AM5455 in which 3 individuals were sitting. The car stopped in
between pillar no. 80 and 81 to which the secret informer identified
the suspected person as Firoz – sitting adjacent to the driver namely
Munsad and his accomplice person who was sitting on the back seat
identified as Zakir Hussain (the petitioner herein). The three
individuals came to supply opium/heroin.
5. After sometime, the person sitting at the front seat namely Firoz and
the person sitting at back seat namely Zakir Hussain (the petitioner
herein) came out of the car carrying bags in their hands and started
waiting for someone to whom the alleged contraband was to be
delivered. After waiting for 10 minutes when nobody came to collect
the bags, the raiding team apprehended the abovesaid persons with
their bags.
6. The passers-by who had gathered there were informed about the
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1418/2024 Page 2 of 20
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:22.01.2025
15:44:47
information and asked to join the investigation, refused to join the
same by citing their own justified compulsions. All the apprehended
persons including the petitioner were apprised about the secret
information and were told about their personal search. The SI then
informed Inspector Manmeet Malik over phone about the apprehended
persons and requested to reach the spot. Subsequently, notices were
served under Section 50 of NDPS Act to all apprehended persons.
7. From search of Firoz (co-accused), 0.510grams of opium was
recovered and from the petitioner i.e. Zakir Hussain, 2.615 Kgs of
opium was found from the bag which he was carrying and from
Munsad, nothing was recovered. Hence, the FIR.
8. The petitioner was arrested on 18.07.2022.
9. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against all the
abovesaid persons including the petitioner under section 18, 25 and 29
of NDPS Act.
10. The petitioner filed his regular bail application before the learned Trial
Court which was dismissed vide Order dated 06.02.2024. Hence the
present petition.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 50
of the NDPS Act should be complied with fully as it is a mandatory
requirement. It is stated that the word „any‟ instead of „nearest‟ has
been used in the notice given under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. It is
further submitted that the words „any‟ and „nearest‟ have different
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1418/2024 Page 3 of 20
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:22.01.2025
15:44:47
interpretations. Reliance is placed on Mohd. Jabir v. State (NCT of
Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1827.
12. He further contends that the samples for the FSL report should have
been sent within 72 hours from the date of seizure, as per the Standing
Order1/88 dated 15.03.1988. There has been a delay of 13 days in
sending the samples to the FSL for examination. Reliance is placed on
Kashif v. Narcotics Control Bureau in Bail Appln. 253/2023 decided
on 18.05.2023, Vinod Nagar v. NCB in Bail Appln. 3149/2022
decided on 19.02.2024.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no independent witness
has joined the investigation even though the petitioner was
apprehended from a crowded roadside at 11:15 PM. Additionally, no
CCTV footage has been taken by the prosecution in support of their
case. Reliance is placed on Krishan v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023
SCC OnLine Del 864 and Vikash v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC
OnLine Del 7359.
14. Lastly, it is prayed that the petitioner is languishing in jail since
18.07.2022, none of the witnesses have been examined till yet out of
total 22 prosecution witnesses and the co-accused namely Munsad is
released on bail vide order dated 16.09.2023.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
15. It is argued by the Ld. APP that NDPS Act is a special statute with an
overriding effect over CrPC. Sections 41, 42 and 43 of NDPS Act
provides for warrants, search, arrest and seizure. These have an
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1418/2024 Page 4 of 20
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:22.01.2025
15:44:47
overriding effect over corresponding sections of CrPC. Section 51 of
NDPS Act clarifies that the provisions of CrPC apply only to the
extent they are not inconsistent with the NDPS Act. Therefore, the
provisions of the NDPS Act take precedence over the general
provisions of the CrPC, particularly concerning the procedure for
search, seizure, and arrest.
16. It is contended by the Ld. APP that the provisions of Section 50 of
NDPS Act are mandatory in nature, however, there is an exception i.e.
Section 50(5), which allows a duly authorized officer to conduct a
search without taking the person to be searched to a Gazetted officer
or Magistrate if it is not feasible to do so. Section 50(5) of NDPS Act
must be read in harmony with the other sub-sections of Section 50.
Section 100 CrPC applies in the event the investigating officer is
unable to take the accused to a Gazetted officer or Magistrates due to
circumstances. It is not mandated that the provisions of Section 100
CrPC, would also apply upon refusal by the accused to exercise the
option provided under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act. The provisions
of Section 100(4) are not mandatory in nature and even if there is non-
compliance, the recovery may still be valid if it constitutes an offense
under the NDPS Act.
17. He further states that non-joining of independent witnesses despite the
best efforts by the IO, does not automatically vitiate the proceedings.
The recovery effected in the presence of police officials cannot be
doubted and the recovery is a subject matter of Trial. Reliance is
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1418/2024 Page 5 of 20
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:22.01.2025
15:44:47
placed on Kallu Khan v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 197,
Jagwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Crl. Appl. No. 2027/2012 dated
02.11.2023 and Ram Swaroop v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi),
(2013) 14 SCC 235.
18. He further states that the police in performing their official duties, act
under the presumption of regularity. There is a presumption in favour
the police in discharge of their official duties unless contrary evidence
is produced. Reliance is placed on Surinder Kumar v. State of
Punjab, (2020) 2 SCC 563.
19. The argument pertaining failure of the IO to record the raid via
photography or videography is impractical. Practical difficulties
during investigation often limit the IO to record every raid. Reliance is
placed on Chidi Berr Nwayoga v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2558.
20. Lastly, it is stated that delay in trial cannot be attributed to
prosecution. It is contended by the Ld. APP that the delays in the trial
are due to presiding officer being on leave. Reliance is placed on
Mohd Akhtar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3210.
ANALYSIS
21. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
Non compliance of Section 52A (Delay in sending the samples to
FSL)
22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the samples drawn
from the seized contraband were sent to the FSL after a delay of 13
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1418/2024 Page 6 of 20
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:22.01.2025
15:44:47
days whereas the same should have been sent within 72 hours from
the date of seizure.
23. Recently, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v.
Kashif, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3848 has elaborately dealt with the
contours of section 52A of NDPS Act and has summarized as under:-
“39. The upshot of the above discussion may be summarized
as under:
(i) The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be
interpreted keeping in mind the scheme, object and purpose
of the Act; as also the impact on the society as a whole. It
has to be interpreted literally and not liberally, which may
ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the
Act.
(ii) While considering the application for bail, the Court
must bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act which are mandatory in nature. Recording of findings
as mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non is known for
granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under
the NDPS Act.
(iii) The purpose of insertion of Section 52A laying down the
procedure for disposal of seized Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances, was to ensure the early disposal
of the seized contraband drugs and substances. It was
inserted in 1989 as one of the measures to implement and toDigitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1418/2024 Page 7 of 20
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:22.01.2025
15:44:47
give effect to the International Conventions on the Narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances.
(iv) Sub-section (2) of Section 52A lays down the procedure
as contemplated in sub-section (1) thereof, and any lapse or
delayed compliance thereof would be merely a procedural
irregularity which would neither entitle the accused to be
released on bail nor would vitiate the trial on that ground
alone.
(v) Any procedural irregularity or illegality found to have
been committed in conducting the search and seizure during
the course of investigation or thereafter, would by itself not
make the entire evidence collected during the course of
investigation, inadmissible. The Court would have to
consider all the circumstances and find out whether any
serious prejudice has been caused to the accused.
(vi) Any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52A by
itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the
accused to be released on bail. The Court will have to
consider other circumstances and the other primary
evidence collected during the course of investigation, as
also the statutory presumption permissible under Section 54
of the NDPS Act.”
(Emphasis added)
24. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that section
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1418/2024 Page 8 of 20
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:22.01.2025
15:44:47
52A of NDPS Act lays down the procedure for early disposal of the
contraband seized contraband drugs and substances. Any procedural
lapse or delayed compliance of section 52A(2) of NDPS Act would be
a procedural irregularity which will not vitiate the trial and entitle the
accused to be released on bail „on this ground alone‟. The Court has to
consider all the circumstances and other primary evidence and come
to a finding as to whether serious prejudice has been caused to the
accused.
25. Similar view has been reiterated again by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
in Bharat Aambale v. The State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 INSC 78
wherein it is observed as under:-
“50.We summarize our final conclusion as under: –
……………. ……………… …………….
(V) Mere non-compliance of the procedure under Section
52A or the Standing Order(s) / Rules thereunder will not be
fatal to the trial unless there are discrepancies in the
physical evidence rendering the prosecution‟s case doubtful,
which may not have been there had such compliance been
done. Courts should take a holistic and cumulative viewof
the discrepancies that may exist in the evidence adduced by
the prosecution and appreciate the same more carefully
keeping in mind the procedural lapses.
……………. ……………… …………….
(VII) Non-compliance or delayed compliance of the saidDigitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1418/2024 Page 9 of 20
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:22.01.2025
15:44:47
provision or rules thereunder may lead the court to drawing
an adverse inference against the prosecution, however no
hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when such
inference may be drawn, and it would all depend on the
peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.”
26. In the present case, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the samples drawn from the seized contraband were
sent to the FSL for examination after a delay of 13 days which
amounts to violation of the Standing Order 1/88 dated 15.03.1988, in
view of the aforesaid judgment, it will be a subject matter of trial as
the same falls under the “delayed compliance”. Hence, the petitioner
is at liberty to press the aforesaid ground during trial. Having said that,
the other submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are
being dealt as under:-
Non compliance of section 50
27. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the notice given
under section 50 of NDPS Act does not comply with the requisite
condition as mentioned therein, the word „any‟ Magistrate has been
mentioned instead of „nearest‟ Magistrate, hence there is non
compliance of the said section.
28. I have already observed in Sanjay v. The State of NCT of Delhi in
BAIL APPLN. 3710/2023 while relying on the judgment of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court of State of NCT of Delhi v. Mohd. Jabir,
Criminal Appeal No. 4931 of 2024 that the word „any‟ instead of
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1418/2024 Page 10 of 20
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:22.01.2025
15:44:47
„nearest‟ does not negate the effect and intent of notice given under
section 50 of NDPS Act. Further, it is the duty imposed on the officer
to inform the accused or to whom the notice under section 50 of
NDPS Act is served that he has right to be searched only before a
nearest Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate for the purpose of search.
29. In the present case, notice given to the petitioner under section 50 of
NDPS Act reads as under:-
“You Mussammi Zakir Hussain S/o Fakir Mohammad R/o
VPO Boliya, PS & Tehsil Gharound, Dist Manasaur, MP,
Age: 55 years are informed through this notice that the
police have information that you are in possession of opium
and smack. You are involved in the smuggling of opium and
heroin and you supply opium and heroin to your customers
and opium and heroin may be recovered from your
possession for which you have to be searched. It is your
legal right to get yourself searched before any Gazetted
Officer or Magistrate, which can be arranged. Before your
search, you can search the members of the police party and
the police vehicles.
……………. ………………… ………………
Received the notice which I read and understood. You also
told me the meaning of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. I do
not want to get my search conducted in front of any
Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. I do not want to search theDigitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1418/2024 Page 11 of 20
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:22.01.2025
15:44:47
police party members and police vehicles. You can search
me………”
30. On perusal, the aforesaid content of the notice clearly shows that the
petitioner was duly informed about his right to get searched in the
presence of any Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The petitioner did not
exercise that option. The duty cast upon the officer has been duly
discharged by the said officer. The petitioner was duly informed about
his right and the petitioner chose not to exercise the same. Therefore, I
am of the view that the requisite conditions of section 50 of NDPS Act
have been complied with.
Non Joinder of Independent Witness and lack of photography and
videography
31. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
there have been no independent witnesses who have joined the
investigation for the purpose of search even though the officers were
already informed by secret information. Further, there is no
photography and videography of the seizure process.
32. The said contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the identical submissions advanced by the learned APP for the
State, I have already taken a view in Sanjay v. The State of NCT of
Delhi in BAIL APPLN. 3710/2023 while relying on several
judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and of this Court that
sentence/punishments are based on the quantity of the seized
contraband, hence the procedure prescribed under the NDPS Act must
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1418/2024 Page 12 of 20
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:22.01.2025
15:44:47
be adhered to when any such recovery of the contraband is made. It
was further observed that absence of independent witnesses may not
vitiate the trial and the prosecution is at liberty to explain the said
absence during trial but when it is coupled with lack of photography
and videography, it cast a serious doubt on the prosecution‟s case
unless the same is proved by cogent materials.
33. In the present case, a secret information was received at 7:25 PM and
on the basis of the said information and on the directions of the ACP,
a raiding team was constituted which left for the spot at around 8:54
PM and reached the spot at around 9:45 PM. The petitioner along with
other co-accused persons were apprehended at around 11:15 PM. It
appears that the raiding team successfully reached the spot and there
was sufficient time to get the independent witness/es from Dhuala
Kuan Bus Stand as the same is very crowded place. Only a bald
averment is made in the chargesheet that 4-5 passers-by were
requested to join but all of them denied citing justified compulsion.
No details have been recorded of such passers-by who were asked to
joined and then refused subsequently. Also, no notice under section
100 (8) of CrPC was given to such passers-by on their refusal to join
the seizure process. Further, when the officers had prior secret
information, no justifiable reasons have been given.
34. As noted above, non joining of independent witnesses is not fatal to
the case of the prosecution but while considering the bail application,
the benefit must be extended to the petitioner.
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1418/2024 Page 13 of 20
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:22.01.2025
15:44:47
Long Incarceration and Delay in Trial
35. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is delay in trial
as none of the witnesses out of total 22 witnesses have been examined
yet.
36. To grant bail in NDPS Act, the accused person has to cross the hurdle
of twin conditions mentioned in section 37 of NDPS Act. Time and
again, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has laid
down that the twin conditions can be relaxed provided the accused
person has undergone substantial period of incarceration and the trial
is unlikely to end in near future. In addition, the accused person has a
right to speedy trial which flows from Article 21 of Constitution of
India.
37. In Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC
352, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
“13. When provisions of law curtail the right of an accused
to secure bail, and correspondingly fetter judicial discretion
(like Section 37 of the NDPS Act, in the present case), this
court has upheld them for conflating two competing values,
i.e., the right of the accused to enjoy freedom, based on the
presumption of innocence, and societal interest – as
observed in Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan
(“the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the
police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to
have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence inDigitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1418/2024 Page 14 of 20
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:22.01.2025
15:44:47
favour of the alleged criminal….”). They are, at the same
time, upheld on the condition that the trial is concluded
expeditiously. The Constitution Bench in Kartar Singh v.
State of Punjab made observations to this effect. In Shaheen
Welfare Association v. Union of India again, this court
expressed the same sentiment, namely that when stringent
provisions are enacted, curtailing the provisions of bail, and
restricting judicial discretion, it is on the basis that
investigation and trials would be concluded swiftly……
21. …………. Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in
trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act,
given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to
offences under the NDPS Act too (ref. Satender Kumar Antil
supra). Having regard to these factors the court is of the
opinion that in the facts of this case, the appellant deserves
to be enlarged on bail.
22. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws
which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be
necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded
in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is
immeasurable. Jails are overcrowded and their living
conditions, more often than not, appalling. According to the
Union Home Ministry’s response to Parliament, the
National Crime Records Bureau had recorded that as onDigitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1418/2024 Page 15 of 20
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:22.01.2025
15:44:47
31st December 2021, over 5,54,034 prisoners were lodged
in jails against total capacity of 4,25,069 lakhs in the
country20. Of these 122,852 were convicts; the rest
4,27,165 were undertrials.
23. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that inmates are
at risk of “prisonisation” a term described by the Kerala
High Court in A Convict Prisoner v. State21 as”a radical
transformation” whereby the prisoner:
“loses his identity. He is known by a number. He
loses personal possessions. He has no personal
relationships. Psychological problems result from
loss of freedom, status, possessions, dignity any
autonomy of personal life. The inmate culture of
prison turns out to be dreadful. The prisoner
becomes hostile by ordinary standards. Self-
perception changes.”
24. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to
crime, “as crime not only turns admirable, but the more
professional the crime, more honour is paid to the
criminal”22 (also see Donald Clemmer’s „The Prison
Community‟ published in 194023). Incarceration has
further deleterious effects – where the accused belongs to
the weakest economic strata : immediate loss of livelihood,
and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1418/2024 Page 16 of 20
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:22.01.2025
15:44:47
family bonds and alienation from society. The courts
therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in
the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is
irreparable), and ensure that trials – especially in cases,
where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up
and concluded speedily.”
38. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Man Mandal v. State of W.B., 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1868 granted bail to the petitioners on the ground
that they had undergone almost 2 years and the trial is not likely to be
concluded in near future. Also, in Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. State of
U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 918, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
dispensed the rigors of section 37 of NDPS Act and granted bail to the
petitioner therein. Relevant para of the said judgment is extracted
below:-
“3. It appears that some of the occupants of the „Honda
City‟ Car including Praveen Maurya @ Puneet Maurya
have since been released on regular bail. It is true that the
quantity recovered from the petitioner is commercial in
nature and the provisions of Section 37 of the Act may
ordinarily be attracted. However, in the absence of criminal
antecedents and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for
the last two and a half years, we are satisfied that the
conditions of Section 37 of the Act can be dispensed with atDigitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1418/2024 Page 17 of 20
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:22.01.2025
15:44:47
this stage, more so when the trial is yet to commence though
the charges have been framed.”
39. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Badsha Sk. v. State of W.B., 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1867 has granted bail to the petitioner, who had been
in custody for more than 2 years with trial yet to begin.
40. In the present case, the petitioner has been in custody since
18.07.2022 i.e. more than 2 years 6 months. As per the chargesheet,
there are total 22 witnesses cited and as of now, not a single witness
has been examined. I am of the view that the restrictions given under
section 37 of NDPS Act cannot take precedence over the petitioner‟s
rights guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India. Hence,
Article 21 of Constitution will prevail over the restrictions given under
section 37 of NDPS Act as the petitioner has undergone more than 2
years 6 months of custody and the trial is not likely to conclude in
near future.
41. As per the status report, the petitioner is accused in FIR No. 42/2007
under section 8, 15, 29 of NDPS Act, PS Manasa, Dist. Neemuch, MP
wherein the petitioner has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court
vide judgment dated 15.11.2019. The other two FIRs (FIR No. 23/06
under section 330, 342, 294, 506B, 323, 34 of IPC and section 3(1)2a
of SC/ST Act and FIR No. 24/12 under section 354/509 of IPC) are
not under sections of NDPS Act.
CONCLUSION
42. For the reasons noted above, I am of the view, prima facie, that the
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1418/2024 Page 18 of 20
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:22.01.2025
15:44:47
petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail on the ground of non
joinder of independent witnesses and most importantly delay in trial
and long incarceration.
43. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner herein is released on bail
subject to the following terms and conditions:-
a) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of
Rs 20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) each with 1
surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the
concerned trial court;
b) The petitioner shall not leave the country without the
permission of the concerned court and if the petitioner has a
passport, he shall surrender the same to the concerned trial
court;
c) The petitioner shall furnish to the IO concerned the cell
phone number on which the petitioner may be contacted at
any time and shall ensure that the number is kept active and
switched on at all times;
d) The petitioner will furnish his permanent address to the
concerned IO and in case he changes his address, he will
inform the IO concerned;
e) The petitioner shall not indulge in any act or omission
that is unlawful, illegal or that would prejudice the
proceedings in pending cases, if any;
f) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court on
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1418/2024 Page 19 of 20
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:22.01.2025
15:44:47
every date of hearing unless exempted;
g) The petitioner shall not communicate with, or come into
contact with any of the prosecution witnesses, or tamper
with the evidence of the case.
44.All the observations made herein above are only for the purpose of
deciding the present petition and will have no effect on the merits of
the case pending.
45.The petition along with pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
JASMEET SINGH, J
JANUARY 22, 2025/(MSQ)
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 1418/2024 Page 20 of 20
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:22.01.2025
15:44:47