Zahra Bolhasini v. State ( Govt Of NCT Of Delhi) & ORS

$~91 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 3943/2018 ZAHRA BOLHASINI ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr Karan Pal Singh, Advocate along with petitioner in person.

versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... Respondents Through:

Mr Sanjay Lao, ASC with Mr Karanjeet Sharma, Advocate for State with SI Anuj Singh, PS H.

Nizamuddin.

Ms Mahima Chaudhary, Advocate for R-2 and R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 26.09.2019 1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to respondent no. 10 (SHO, PS Hazrat Nizamuddin) to recover the articles as mentioned in Paragraph 10 of the present petition. It is the petitioner's case that she was arrested and taken into police custody and in her absence, her goods were stolen. According to the petitioner, she was in possession of goods valued at ₹48 lakhs. The petitioner states that these goods had been purchased by the petitioner as well as her associates, who have since left the country. The petitioner has been unable to provide any details as to how the sum of ₹48 lakhs was brought into this country. She has neither furnished the details of authorised currency dealers from

whom foreign currency was exchanged to Indian Rupees. Clearly, all such details would have to be provided by the petitioner. 2.

The status report had been filed, which indicates that an FIR had been registered and the concerned ACP has taken steps to carry out necessary investigation. A search of the premises in question and of certain persons alleged to have taken the goods of the petitioner has been taken. In addition, a polygraph test has also been conducted by the FSL, to ascertain the veracity of the statements made by some of the accused. 3.

In view of the above, no further orders are required to be passed in this petition, except to direct the concerned ACP to conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible. It is so directed. 4.

It is noticed that the petitioner is not an Indian citizen and had come to India on a tourist visa and not to conduct any business. 5.

It is clarified that nothing stated in this order, or the pendency of the said FIR, shall preclude the concerned authorities from taking necessary steps on account of the petitioner overstaying in this country. 6.

The petition is disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2019 MK