Delhi High Court
Ajay @ Bhagira vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 26 July, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 26th July, 2018
+ W.P.(CRL) 3607/2017 and Crl. M.A. No.21386/2017 (Stay)
AJAY @ BHAGIRA ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. S.S. Singh, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan,
Additional Standing Counsel
for State with Inspector Manoj
Sharma, SI Anuj Kumar, PS
Mayur Vihar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
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
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
in camera who deposed about fear of safety to their life and property.
4. Pursuant to the show cause notice, petitioner filed his reply inter alia
taking the pleas that in some cases he was acquitted or discharged and that
he was not involved in any commission of offence as mentioned.
5. During the enquiry, SHO Mayur Vihar was summoned who placed on
record the relevant records and the petitioner was asked whether he would
lead any defence evidence and the petitioner examined one defence witness.
Thereafter the petitioner sought number of adjournments which were
granted. The Additional DCP finally passed the order dated 14th September,
2017 directing the petitioner to remove himself from the limits of NCT of
Delhi within a period of seven days from the date of order for a period of
two years except permitting him to attend the Courts at Delhi on all dates of
hearing.
6. Aggrieved by the order dated 14th September, 2017 under Section 47
of the DP Act, petitioner filed an appeal before the Lieutenant Government
which was dismissed vide order dated 8th November, 2017.
7. In the present petition the petitioner challenges the two orders dated
14th September, 2017 passed by the Additional DCP, East District and the
order dated 8th November, 2017 passed by the Lieutenant Governor.
8. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner wanted to examine four defence witnesses however, he was
permitted to examine only one defence witness and not allowed to examine
the three other witnesses, hence the inquiry against the petitioner is vitiated.
9. This Court has perused the original file of externment. After the
prosecution witness SHO, PS Mayur Vihar was examined and cross-
examined by the learned counsel for the petitioner on 9 th March, 2017, the
proceedings were adjourned to 11th April, 2017 for the petitioner to produce
his defence witnesses. No list of witnesses was filed by the petitioner. On
11th April, 2017, the petitioner absented without any intimation and thus
bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner through SHO, PS Mayur
Vihar for 2nd May, 2017 when the petitioner was present without counsel.
He was granted one more opportunity to produce his defence witnesses and
the inquiry was posted for 23rd May, 2017. Even on 23rd May, 2017 the
petitioner was present without counsel but produced one witness Niranjan
Prasad, whose statement was recorded and placed on record. The petitioner
stated that he had no other defence witness to produce in his defence and the
matter was listed for arguments on 13th June, 2017 when the petitioner was
present without counsel. Again on 7th July, 2017, 1st August, 2017, 1st
September, 2017 and 14th September, 2017 the petitioner appeared without
counsel and hence on 14th September, 2017, the Additional DCP heard
arguments on behalf of the State as well as the petitioner and after going
through the material on record passed the impugned order dated 14 th
September, 2017.
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.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
JULY 26, 2017
'vn'
