Abdul Rabbani @ Rabba v. State Of NCT Of Delhi

$~ SB-9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2194/2025 ABDUL RABBANI @ RABBA .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Amit Saxena, Mr. Sachin Saxena, Mr. Rohit Sharma, Mr. Sanjay Singh and Ms. Rachna Gautam, Advocates versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for State.

Ms. Sonia A Menon and Ms. Varsha, Advocates for R-2 with Mr. Setu Dutt Sharma, Senior Manager for MSTC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R

% 06.06.2025 CRL.M.A. 17882/2025 1.

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2.

The application stands disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 2194/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1263/2025 (Interim Bail) 3.

Having regard to the facts as argued by Mr. Saxena that the applicant is not a resident of H. No.173, A Block, Near Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, as noted at page 96, which is the notice under Section 67 of NDPS Act, 1985, requiring his presence, coupled with the fact that at page 118 of the present application, the correct address of the applicant has been given, which is quite distinct, it appears that the notices were not served upon the correct address. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 23:53:26

4.

The Aadhar card placed on record indicates the address of the applicant as H. No.17, Block AD Shalimar Bagh, North West, Delhi. Mr. Khanna learned APP submits that the Aadhar Card, as annexed, has not been verified by the police authorities. Thus, according to him, the address mentioned in the notice under Section 67 of NDPS Act, 1985, prima facie, appears to be the correct one.

5.

Mr. Khanna hands over the SCRB record of one Abdul Rabbani, whose address is shown as 20/21, Jhuggi No. 173, AA Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, to submit that this is the address which was pointed out as per the disclosure statement of the co-accused Savita.

6.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions, it appears that there is no apprehension in context of which the present application seeking anticipatory bail has been filed. The present application is therefore disposed of granting liberty to the applicant to take appropriate steps in order to redress grievances in case such apprehension or the fear of the apprehension is real and present. TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J (VACATION JUDGE) JUNE 6, 2025 yrj The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 23:53:26