Delhi District Court
State vs . Amrik Singh Etc. on 8 December, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV AGGARWAL:ASJ: ROHINI
COURTS: DELHI.
SC No.546/11
State Vs. Amrik Singh etc.
PS Rohini
FIR No.221/09
U/s 3 MCOCA
08.12.2011
ORDER ON CHARGE: Vide this order, I shall dispose off the arguments on charge, as well as the bail application of the accused Anil Kaur wife of Amrik Singh.
In brief the prosecution story is that, on 03.05.2009, a proposal was submitted by the then ACP Sub Division Rohini, through DCP (Outer) to Joint C.P Northern Range with the following allegations against Amrik Singh Son of Late Shiv Charan.
It is submitted that on 11.04.2009, one Dhir Singh S/o State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 2 Mange Ram R/o H.No.278, Village Dariyapur, Delhi (aged 55 years) reported that on 09.04.2009, his eldest son namely Parveen had gone to the house of Amrik Singh alongwith his wife Vibha and sister in law Vaishali (aged about 21/2 years) to attend a function but did not return back. The family members of Parveen came to village Mangolpur Kalan in search of them, where it was found that Amrik Singh alongwith his family was also not present in the house. They further enquired from their relatives, but in vain. It was suspected by Shri Dhir Singh that Amrik Singh had abducted Parveen, Vibha and Vaishali. Upon receipt of this complaint, a case vide FIR No. 173/09, U/s 365 IPC dated 11.4.2009 was registered in PS Rohini.
During the course of investigation of the case, upon a tip off, a team comprising SHO, Rohini and other staff raided a premises near Mussoorie in Uttaranchal, from where, accused Amrik Singh S/o. Late Shiv Charan and his other accomplice, Sandeep S/o. Ram Kumar R/o. H.No.12, Village Mangolpur Kalan, were arrested and two sophisticated pistols with live rounds State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 3 were also recovered from their possession. Upon interrogation, it was disclosed by him that he with the help of his associates administered sedatives in the food of Parveen and Vibha and after they fell in a state drowsiness, they alongwith Vaishali were abducted by him with the help of his associates namely Sandeep and Preeti. They used Santro Car brought by Parveen for abduction. They were then taken to a deserted place near Kithore, District Meerut, (U.P.), and were killed and their dead bodies were thrown in a canal flowing nearby.
After this, Amrik Singh, alongwith his associates, viz. Sandeep and Preeti went to Meerut and thereafter, reached to a isolated hideout at village Bhatta, District Dehradun (near Mussoorie, Uttaranchal). All three accused have been arrested in this case. The dead bodies of all the three abducted persons were recovered from canals under the jurisdiction of all the three abducted persons were recovered from canals under the jurisdiction of PS Simbhaoli, District Ghaziabad (U.P.) which could not be identified and were cremated by the UP Police after State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 4 conducting inquest proceedings. Two cases of murder were also registered at PS Simbhaoli based on the postmortem reports.
Records reveal that accused Amrik Singh is a History Sheeter (BC of the Bundle'A') of PS Rohini, who was also involved in as many as, nine cases earlier, mostly heinous in nature. He has been involved in cases of murder, attempt to murder, illegal confinement, house trespass, and cases of Arms Act. A list of cases in which he is involved is enclosed as Annexure A. The Hon'ble Courts have taken cognizance in all the cases. He was convicted in three of them by the Hon'ble Court while other two cases are pending trial in different courts. He is a desperate criminal and involved in heinous cases where fire arms was recurrently used in the commission of the crime. He is such a dreaded criminal that people residing in his village are afraid to utter anything against him.
It was further stated in the said proposal that: From the arrest of accused Amrik Singh alongwith his State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 5 associates in Case FIR No.173/09, U/s. 365/364/328/302/201/34 IP and 25/27 Arms Act, PSrohini, Delhi, it has been established that he abducted and then killed Parveen, Vibha and Vaishali because Vibha and Vaishali were the daughters of his deceased brother Late Lokpal who were benefiting from huge amount of rent collected from their father's house and it was pinching in his eyes. Because, he wanted to grab this property worth crores of rupees for his pecuniary gain, he hatched a plan to kill the three daughters of his elder brother Late Lokpal, and succeeded in killing two of them with his son in law. His barbaric act of killing the youngest daughter of his brother who was just 2 ½ years old is enough testimony to his devilish intentions. There is enough reason is to believe that the recovered fire arms were used for committing the abduction and murders with the help of members of Crime Syndicate as covered under Section 22(1) (a) of MCOC Act, 1999.
That total nine charge sheets have been filed against accused Amrik Singh and Hon'ble Courts have already been State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 6 taken cognizance in more than one case with offence carrying punishment of imprisonment of three years or more, within the preceding period of ten years. As such, his case is covered under Section 2 (d) of the MCOC Act 1999. A list is enclosed at Annexure C. After the consideration of the said proposal submitted by the concerned ACP, then Joint CP Northern Range, granted approval u/s. 23 (1) (a) of MCOCA to invoke the provisions of MCOCA against Amrik Singh and his associates. Consequently, an FIR bearing no. 221/2009, u/s. 3 of MCOCA was registered at PS Rohini.
Thereafter, in continuation of the said investigations a further proposal was moved by ACP (Operations) on 25.3.2011, in view of the certain facts discovered during the investigations of the said case to invoke the provisions of MCOCA against Anil Kaur Wife of Amrik Singh, Vinay S/o Amrik Singh, Sheela W/o. Late Satpal State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 7 Singh, Vipin S/o. Late Satpal , Vikas S/o. Amrik Singh and one Jagbir Sharma R/o. Panipat on the following basis: During the course of investigation of case FIR No. 173/09, u/s. 364/365/328/302/201/120B/212/506/34 IPC PS Rohini accused (1) Anil Kaur W/o. Amrik Singh R/o. 16/21 (173/23), village Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi (2) Vinay S/o. Amrik Singh R/o. 16/21 (173/23) Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi (3) Sheela W/o. Late Satpal Singh R/o. 16/21 (173/23) Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi (4) Vipin S/o. Late Satpal R/o. 16/21 (173/23) Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi were also arrested for a criminal conspiracy and facilitating accused Amrik Singh and his associates in commission of crime. Amrik Singh wanted to grab the property of Rasna, Vibha & Vaishali, who were the daughters of Late Lokpal Singh. He hatched a criminal conspiracy with his associates to kill the all three daughters of Lokpal Singh and their husbands. He was succeeded to kill two of them with his one son in law. This was the motive behind the offence of case FIR No.173/09, u/s.
364/365/328/302/201/120B/212/506/34 IPC, PS Rohini, case is State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 8 pending trial and all above said accused except C.C.L. Vipin S/o. Late Satpal Singh have been charged with the offence punishable u/s. 120B/364/302/201 IPC as well as accused Amrik Singh, Sandeep and Preeti Kalra. As such all four are also liable to be prosecuted u/s. 3 (i) (ii) MCOC Act. (copy of FIR and charge sheet enclosed).
Further accused Amrik Singh also conspired with accused (1) Vikas S/o. Amrik Singh r/o. 16/21 (173/23) Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi (2) Jagbir Sharma s/o. Om Prakash Shar R/o. 44/9, Kaldar Chowk, Panipat, Haryana and make further efforts to dispossess the complainant Rasna (Sister of deceased Vibha and Vaishali in case FIR No. 173/09, PSrohini) from the part portion of property in question i.e. builtup premises at Khasra No. 16/21/1/1, Village Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi. Amrik Singh while in custody in case FIR No. 173/09, PS Rohini, also executed rent agreement in favour of Shri Jagbir Sharma above mentioned and wanted to grab the property of Lokpal's remaining daughter namely Rasna. In this regard a case FIR no.611/09, dated State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 9 08.12.2009 u/s. 452/448/506/120B IPC PS South Rohini was registered and Amrik Singh and his associates namely (1) Vikas S/o. Amrik Singh R/o 16/21 (173/23) Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi (2) Jagbir Sharma S/o. Om Prakash Sharma R/o. 44/9, Kalndar Chowk, Panipat, haryana were arrested in this case (copy of FIR and chargesheets are enclosed).
As such accused Vikas S/o. Amrik Singh r/o. 16/21 (173/23) Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi and Jagbir Sharma S/o. Om Prakash Sharma R/o. 44/9. Kalndar chowk, Panipat, are also libale to offence u/s. 3 (i) (ii) MCOCA for conspiracy and facilitation to grab the property in question.
This further proposal to include the names of the aforesaid accused persons by invoking the provisions of MCOCA was granted permission u/s. 23 (1) (a) of MCOCA by then Joint CP, Northern Range vide order 1.4.2011.
After completion of the investigations, permission to prosecute the accused Amrik Singh, Vinay, Anil Kaur, Sheela, State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 10 Sandeep, Preeti Kalra and Pankaj Brar was granted by the Joint CP Northern Range, U/s 23 (2) of MCOCA. After that a chargesheet was filed in the special Court and the cognizance was taken of the offence u/s. 3 of MCOC Act 1999, against all the accused persons mentioned above.
I have heard the ld. Defence counsels for the accused persons Shri Mohd. Nasir, Shri Anil Panwar and Shri Suresh Tomar and Shri A.K. Srivastava, ld. Addl. PP for the State, as well as, on the second bail application of accused Anil Kaur.
It was argued by the Ld. Defence counsels that, the approval to invoke MCOCA against Amrik Singh u/s. 23 (1) (a) was accorded on 4.5.2009 and permission u/s. 23 (2) MCOCA against all the accused persons was granted on 13.7.2011, whereas the cognizance in FIR No.173/09 was taken on 12.10.2009. therefore, it State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 11 could not be said that, the accused persons other than Amrik Singh against whom there was no FIR other than FIR no.173/09, were involved in continuing unlawful activity i.e. activity prohibited by law, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years and more taken either singly or jointly on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one chargesheet have been filed before a competent court within the preceding period of ten years and the court had taken cognizance of such offence, therefore, it could not be said that, all the other accused persons except Amrik Singh were involved as members of organized crime syndicate against whom more than one chargesheet had been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years, as all the FIR against the accused Amrik Singh prior to the FIR No.173/09 were in his individual capacity and not as a member of any crime syndicate. State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 12 They have also argued that, none of the aforesaid accused persons were the members of the organized crime syndicate or had got any pecuniary advantage out of the act, for which FIR No.173/09, was lodged. As all the allegations were against the accused Amrik Singh, who had obtained the pecuniary advantage out of the same, therefore, it is prayed that no offence under MCOCA is made out against any of the accused persons. They have also relied upon judgments 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 3496 of Bombay High Court in support of their contentions.
On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that all the accused persons were members of the organized crime syndicate, and were committing organized crime i.e. they were indulging in continuing unlawful activity either singly or jointly, either as a member of organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 13 syndicate by use of violence or thereat of violence or intimidation with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits or gaining undue economic or other advantage.
He has further argued that more than, one chargesheet referred in Section 2 (d) of MCOC, Act, 1999, referred to unlawful activities of organized crime syndicates and not qua individual member thereof, for which he has relied upon judgment Govind Sakharam Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (3) Bom CR (Cri) 144. In these circumstances, he has argued that charge u/s. 3 (1) and 3(2) and 3(3) of the MCOCA is made out against all the accused persons and they be tried accordingly.
I have gone through the rival contentions.
Section 2(d) of MCOC Act reads as under: "continuing unlawful activity" means an activity prohibited by law for the time State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 14 being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one chargesheets have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence."
Further Section 2(e) and 2 (f) of MCOC Act reads as under:
(e) "organized crime" means any continuing unlawful activity by an individual singly or jointly, either as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 15 or any other person or promoting insurgency".
(f) "organized crime syndicate" means a group of two or more persons who acting either singly or collectively, as a syndicate or gang indulge in activities of organized crime:".
The permission to invoke MCOCA against accused Amrik Singh was granted vide order, dt. 04.05.2009 of the concerned Joint C.P of Police, and further proposal to add the names of Anil Kaur, Vinay, Sheela, Vipin, Vikas and Jagbir was granted by Joint C.P of Police, U/s 23(1)(a) of MCOCA on 01.04.2011 and finally the permission to prosecute all the accused persons, namely, Amrik Singh, Vinay, Anil Kaur, Sheela, Sandeep, Preeti Kalra and Pankaj Barar was granted U/s 23(2) of MCOCA on 13.07.2011.
The cognizance of the offence in FIR No.173/09 was taken State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 16 against the accused Amrik Singh, Sandeep, Preeti Kalra and Pankaj Brar on 20.07.2009 and on the supplementary charge sheet against accused Sheela, Anil Kaur and Vinay on 12.04.2010.
Therefore, the cognizance of the offence in FIR No.173/09 was taken much prior to invocation of MCOCA against accused Anil Kaur, Vinay, Sheela, Vipin, Vikas and Jagbir U/s 23(1) (a), which took place on 01.04.2011, and the permission U/s 23(1)(a) to invoke MCOCA against accused Amrik Singh was granted on 04.05.2009 and finally the permission to prosecute all the accused persons in the present case U/s 23(2) of MCOCA was granted on 13.07.2011.
Therefore, in these circumstances, it can be clearly said that cognizance of the offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more in a charge sheet filed against the accused persons had already been taken against all the accused persons on the date State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 17 of invocation of MCOCA against them i.e in FIR No.173/09, PS Rohini, and as per judgment Govind Ram Shakha Ram (supra), wherein it has been held that more than one charge sheet in section 2(1)(d) of MCOCA refers to unlawful activities of organized crime syndicate and not qua individual member thereof, the relevant extract is at para 37 of the said judgment, which is reproduced as under: "But even otherwise, if all provisions are read together we reach the same conclusion. Section 2(1)(d) which defines continuing unlawful activity sets down a period of 10 years within which more than one charge sheet have to be filed. The members of the crime syndicate operate either singly or jointly in commission of organized crime. They operate in different modules. A person may be a part of the module which jointly undertakes an organized crime or he may singly as a member of the organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate undertake State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 18 an organized crime In both the situations, the MCOCA can be applied. It is the membership of organized crime syndicate which makes a person liable under the MCOCA. This is evident from Section 3(4) of the MCOCA which states that any person who is a member of an organized crime syndicate shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine, subjection to a minimum of fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. The charge under the MCOCA ropes in a person who as a member of the organized crime syndicate commits organized crime i.e acts of extortion by giving threats, etc. to gain economic advantage or supremacy, as a member of the crime syndicate singly or jointly. Charge is in respect of unlawful activities of the organized crime syndicate. Therefore, if within a period of preceding ten years, one charge sheet has been filed in respect of organized crime committed by the members of a particular crime syndicate, the said charge sheet can be taken against a member of the said crime State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 19 syndicate for the purpose of application of the MCOCA against him even if he is involved in one case. The organized crime committed by him will be a part of the continuing unlawful activity of the organized crime syndicate. What is important is the nexus or the link of the person with organized crime syndicate.
The link with the 'organized crime syndicate' is the crux of the term 'continuing unlawful activity'. If this link is not established, that person can not be roped in".
In my view analogy can be drawn to that of a partnership firm wherein a partner is jointly and severally liable for the acts of other partner, even though he might not have done the particular act and his liability in this regard is unlimited. Similarly, if there is a crime syndicate or crime partnership to commit organized crime then every member of the said syndicate would be liable for the acts of the crime syndicate even though he may have not participated in particular State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 20 crime or module, for purpose of ascertaining his liability or with regard to continuing unlawful activity of such crime syndicate in committing organized crime, therefore, if there is a charge sheet filed against particular crime syndicate, or crime partnership, of which particular person is member, even though he may not have actually participated in that particular crime. Even then, the same can be taken into account as more than one charge sheet within last 10 years of which cognizance has been taken within the meaning of continuing unlawful activity.
The ratio of the above judgment is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as it is clear that the accused Amrik Singh prior to the registration of the FIR No.173/09, was involved in 10 other cases and he was running a crime syndicate along with his other associates since 1986. Though, it is a different State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 21 matter that he had been acquitted in some of those cases, but the acquittal or conviction in those cases is not relevant to invoke the provisions of MCOCA, rather it is a continuing unlawful activity of the crime syndicate involved in organized crime, which is relevant for invoking the provisions of MCOCA.
In view of the judgment Govind Sakha Ram (supra), the charge under MCOCA ropes in a person, who as a member of organized crime syndicate commits organized crime i.e acts of extortion by giving threats etc. to gain economic advantage either singly or jointly, charge is in respect of unlawful activities of the organized crime syndicate.
Therefore, if within a period of preceding 10 years, one charge sheet has been filed in respect of organized crime, committed by the members of the particular crime syndicate, then by the principle of State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 22 agency, the said charge sheet can be taken against a member of the said crime syndicate for the purpose of invocation of MCOCA against him, even if he is involved in one case. As discussed above, accused Amrik Singh was running a crime syndicate, where he was involved in various cases of criminal trespass, attempt to murder, arms act and from the material placed on the record in the present case, it is clear that certain other persons other than Amrik Singh were also the members of his crime syndicate being run by him to intimidate and threaten the persons, where he was operating in criminal activities, therefore, the charge sheets, filed against him for running the said crime syndicate, being run by him can also be taken into consideration against all the other members of the crime syndicate i.e against the accused Sandeep, Preeti Kalra, Pankaj Brar, Vinay, Anil Kaur and Sheela Devi.
State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 23 The I.O has filed the copies of the said previous FIR's against the accused Amrik Singh and some of the charge sheets have also been filed, in which he was facing trial. The I.O has also placed on the record the statement of various witnesses in those previous FIR's, wherein they have stated that accused Amrik Singh used to be a terror in the locality, where he was running a crime syndicate and used to intimidate anyone, who used to depose against him in any trial and he also used to extort money from them.
In the present case, there is the statement of one Harsh husband of Rasna and Rasna, who was the daughter of late Lokpal (deceased), the brother of the accused Amrik Singh, in which they have categorically stated that they were invited to take food at the house of Amrik Singh on 09.04.2009 and at that time Amrik Singh, Sheela, Anil Kaur, Vinay, Vipin, Preeti Kalra and Sandeep were State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 24 present, and they asked them to take food, but they had to leave for some urgent work.
Therefore, they left the house of Amrik Singh, whereas her sister Vibha and Vaishali and husband of Vibha, namely, Praveen remained there for taking food and after that they did not return back to their house and they were frantically searched by their family members and thereafter they were never seen alive.
From the perusal of the record, it is revealed that one Shiv Charan, who was father of Amrik Singh, Satpal and Lokpal had bequeathed his entire properties in the name of his grand sons, namely, Dain S/o Lokpal, Vivek and Vipin S/o Satpal and Vikas and Vinay sons of Amrik Singh. However, it so happened that said Dain S/o Lokpal also died under suspicious circumstances and thereafter the 1/3 share in the properties of Shiv Charan fell in the shares of 3 State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 25 daughters of Lokpal, namely, Vibha, Rasna and Vaishali, which the accused Amrik Singh wanted to grab in connivance with his family members and friends, for which he had hatched criminal conspiracy to eliminate them and for which purpose he had called them to their house on 09.04.2009 on the pretext of having some function.
The I.O has also seized the rent documents of at least 1011 properties of Rasna, which shows that she is having large amount of rental income from her ancestral properties. Therefore, the entire conspiracy was hatched by accused Amrik Singh along with his co accused persons by way of an organized crime syndicate, and all the accused persons were acting either singly or jointly as a member of said member of crime syndicate by use of violence criminal intimidation and coercion with the use of unlawful means with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits i.e to grab the properties of State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 26 Vibha, Rasna and Vaishali.
The role of Pankaj Brar is that he had harbored the accused persons and concealed the accused persons firstly in his house at Meerut and thereafter he managed a house for concealing Amrik Singh, Sandeep and Preeti at village Bhatta, situated between the hills of Dehradun and Mussoorie and he also received Rs. 2 lacs as first installment for harboring Amrik Singh and out of those 2 lacs, received from Amrik Singh he purchased one zen estilo car for Rs. 75,000/ and one car belonging to Vibha, which was also recovered near his residence.
The Ld. Defence counsels have filed the evidence of the case recorded in the FIR No.173/09 so far, wherein some of the witnesses have turned hostile. The same evidence cannot be considered at this stage, firstly for the reason that the said matter is still pending trial State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 27 and therefore no opinion can be given by this court on the evidence lead so far there, and secondly, even otherwise for invocation of MCOCA acquittal or conviction in a particular case in a previous charge sheet is not relevant.
It is settled law that at the stage of charge, the court has to take primafacie view of the matter and if from the material placed on the record strong suspicion arises that the accused persons are involved in the commission of the offence(s), for which they have been charge sheeted, the court would be fully justified in framing charge(s) against them on the basis of primafacie material, placed on the record.
In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, a charge U/s 3 (1) (1) & 3(2) MCOC Act 1999 is made out against the accused Amrik Singh, whereas a charge U/s 3(2) MCOC Act is made out against the accused persons, Vinay, Anil Kaur, Sheela, Sandeep, Preeti Kalra for State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 28 conspiring, abetting, facilitating the commission of organized crime, being the members of criminal syndicate, which the accused Amrik Singh was running and lastly against the accused Pankaj Barar a charge U/s 3(3) of MCOC Act is made out for harboring and concealing accused Amrik Singh, Sandeep and Preeti Kalra, who were the members of the aforesaid crime syndicate, run by accused Amrik Singh.
Regarding the bail application of accused Anil Kaur, it is stated that she is in J.C since 12.04.2011 and material witnesses in FIR No. 173/09 have already been examined and she is a lady, 48 years of age and she was not likely to commit any crime, while on bail.
The said application has been strongly opposed by the Ld. Public Prosecutor.
I have gone through the record. Since a charge against State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09 29 accused Anil Kaur is also made out as discussed above U/s 3(2) of MCOCA, therefore, it cannot be said at this stage, when the evidence is still to be lead that there are reasonable grounds for believing that she is not guilty of said act, and further it cannot be said in view of the grave and serious allegations against her that she is not likely to commit any such crime again, while on bail. In these circumstance(s), no ground for enlarging her on bail is made out at this stage, hence her bail application stands dismissed.
To come up for formal framing of charge(s), as ordered above on 21.12.2011.
(Sanjeev Aggarwal) ASJ/Rohini/Delhi/08.12.2011 State Vs. Amrik Singh etc. PS Rohini FIR No.221/09