Mohan Rai Arora @ Monu v. Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi
$~5 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MOHAN RAI ARORA alias MONU .....Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Shri Singh and Ms.Maneka Khanna, Advocates.
versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Represented by: Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, APP for the State with S.I. Arvind.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R
% 21.05.2020 1.
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing. 2.
By this application the petitioner seeks interim bail for a period of 8 weeks in case FIR No. 61/2019 under Section 21/25/29 NDPS Act registered at PS Crime Branch.
3.
The above-noted FIR was registered after an information was received that two persons Arvind and Monu along with their associates Srikant are indulging in supplying cocaine and they can be trapped today. A raiding party was constituted and at 11.30 PM one silver colour Scorpio vehicle No. DL 8C AQ 9099 was seen coming from Pusta road towards SDM Office, Geeta Colony wherein two persons were sitting. On the pointing out of secret informer the vehicle was intercepted. The petitioner was found on the driver's seat whereas Arvind was found sitting next to him. On checking the vehicle from its dashboard one black colour polythene packet containing two transparent colour polythene packets were recovered which were found to contain a total of 400 grams of cocaine.
4.
Charge-sheet has since been filed. The present application seeks interim-bail on the ground that the petitioner's brother Prateek Arora had suffered an accident in 2018 resulting in his being bed-ridden and needing care all the time. Further, the mother of the petitioner Mrs. Sudha Arora is also suffering from depression and other ailments. 5.
The medical documents of Prateek Arora and Smt. Sudha Arora have since been verified except the OPD documents from AIIMS. Further, it is not disputed that the petitioner's brother is bed-ridden and needs a care giver. The problem faced by the petitioner's family at the moment is that the medical attendant is not able to come to take care of the brother. 6.
The application is opposed by the State on the ground that CDRs and bank account transactions show that the petitioner was in regular touch with the co-accused Arvind and Srikant. From the bank account statements, this Court finds as also informed by the Investigating Officer S.I. Arvind Kumar that though there is a transaction of Rs.8 lakhs inter-se Arvind and Srikant, between the petitioner and Srikant there are two transactions of Rs.10,000/- each. 7.
As per the status report the petitioner is not involved in any other case. 8.
Considering the emergent situation and that due to being bed-ridden the petitioner's brother needs support besides his mother as well, this Court deems it fit to grant interim bail to the petitioner. It is therefore directed that the petitioner be released on interim bail for a period of 8 weeks on the petitioner furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent Mandoli Jail/ Duty Magistrate. One of the surety of the petitioner would be his family member and the petitioner and surety would furnish their mobile numbers which would be kept in active mode during the operation of the interim bail granted to the petitioner.
9.
Petition is disposed of.
10.
Copy of the order be uploaded on the website of the Court. MUKTA GUPTA, J.
MAY 21, 2020 'ga'