Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 26th July, 2018
M.A. No.21386/2017 (Stay)
AJAY @ BHAGIRA ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. S.S. Singh, Advocate.
Represented by: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Additional Standing Counsel for State with Inspector Manoj
Sharma, SI Anuj Kumar, PS Mayur Vihar.
JUDGMENT
1. A show cause notice dated 14th October, 2016 was issued against the petitioner under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (in short ‘DP Act’) by the Additional DCP, East District, on the ground that the petitioner was engaged in the commission of crime involving offences punishable under Chapter V-A, X, XI, XVI, XIII of IPC, NDPS Act and Gambling Act and his movements and acts are causing and calculated to cause alarm, danger and harm to the person or property, there were reasonable grounds to believe that he engages or is likely to engage in the commission of offences punishable under Chapter V-A, X, XI, XVI, XIII of IPC, NDPS Act and Gambling Act and that he was not involved in a single isolated incident but indulged in criminal activities since year 2001 and continues the same and was so desperate and dangerous so as to render being at large in Delhi or in any part thereof hazardous to the community and that witnesses were not 2018:DHC:4555 willing to come forward to give evidence in public against him by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property and there being reasonable grounds to believe that he was likely to engage himself in commission of offences.
2. The show cause notice mentioned involvement of the petitioner in the following cases:
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl. FIR Date Section of Law Police Station Present │ │ No. No. Status │ ├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1. 140 10.06.2001 354/323 IPC Mayur Vihar Pending │ │ Trial │ │ 2. 108 10.05.2002 323/341/34 IPC Mayur Vihar Pending │ │ Trial │ │ 3. 126 31.05.2002 365/302/201/120-B/364 IPC Mayur Vihar Acquittal │ │ 4. 335 29.12.2002 323/341/325/34 IPC Mayur Vihar Pending │ │ Trial │ │ 5. 252 05.05.2005 353/186/332/506 IPC Mayur Vihar Conviction │ │ 6. 359 14.10.2013 20/61/85 NDPS Act Mayur Vihar Pending │ │ Trial │ │ 7. 645 04.10.2015 12/9/55 Gambling Act Mayur Vihar Pending │ │ Trial │ │ 8. 214 25.05.2016 12/9/55 Gambling Act Mayur Vihar Pending Inv. │ │ 9. 298 09.08.2016 12/9/55 Gambling Act Mayur Vihar Pending Inv. │ │ 3. The Additional DCP also recorded statements of two public witnesses │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
10. Though the case of the petitioner is that he wanted to examine four defence witnesses, however, as noted above, he never expressed his intention to examine four defence witnesses and produced only one defence witness whereafter he stated that he had no other defence witness to be produced. The order sheets have been duly signed by the petitioner. Hence the plea of the petitioner that the inquiry stands vitiated for not permitting the petitioner to lead the defence evidence is rejected.
11. Considering the material on record and the propensity of the petitioner coupled with the statements of the witnesses recorded in camera, this Court finds no error in the impugned orders.
12. Petition and application are dismissed.
JUDGE JULY 26, 2017 ‘vn’