BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. MC NO. OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF
RAJU KHAN …PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI …RESPONDENT

INDEX

S NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. Notice of Motion
List of Dates & Events
2. Memo of Parties
3. Petition U/s 397 Cr.P.C read with section 482
of Cr.PC against the Order dated 27.03.2024
passed by the Court of Smt. Geetanjali, Ld.
ASJ, South-East District, Saket Courts, New
Delhi wherein the Bail Application filed by
the Applicant/Accused u/s 439 Cr.P.C was
dismissed.
4. ANNEXURE A
Typed Copy of the FIR No. 250/2023, PS.
Crime Branch, South District, Delhi.
5. ANNEXURE B
Typed Copy of Chargesheet dated ……..
6. ANNEXURE C
True copy of the 1st Bail Application
 7. ANNEXURE D
True Typed Copy of the Order dated
25.01.2024 rejecting the 1st Bail Application
of the Petitioner
8. ANNEXURE E
True Copy of the 2nd Bail Application
9. ANNEXURE F
True Typed copy of the report filed by SI
Rakesh Kumar ISC, Crime Branch,
Chanakyapuri, before Ld. ASJ, Saket Courts.
10. ANNEXURE G
True Typed Copy of the Order dated
27.03.2024 passed by the Court of Smt.
Geetanjali, Ld. ASJ, South-East District,
Saket Courts, New Delhi whereby the Bail
Application of the Petitioner was dismissed.
11. Vakalatnama
12. Proof of Service

Petitioner (in JC)

Through
Adeel Ahmed
14, Lawyers Chamber
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi - 110001
Place:
Date:
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Crl MC No. ___________/2011

IN THE MATTER OF:

RAJU KHAN … Petitioner
Versus
State … Respondent

NOTICE OF MOTION
To,

The Standing Counsel (Criminal)

High Court of Delhi
New Delhi.

Please find enclosed herewith the copy of the petition, filed by the above-named
petitioner. The same is likely to be listed before the Hon’ble Court on
________________________ or any other date thereafter.
Petitioner (In JC)
Through

Adeel Ahmed
14, Lawyers Chamber
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi - 110001
Place:
Date:
 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. MC NO. OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF
RAJU KHAN …PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI …RESPONDENT

MEMO OF PARTIES
Raju Khan (in JC)
S/o.
R/o.
…PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of NCT of Delhi
Station House Officer,
P.S. Crime Branch …RESPONDENT

PETIITONER (in JC)

Through
Adeel Ahmed
14, Lawyers Chamber
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi - 110001
Place:
Date:
 LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
DATES EVENTS
19.10.2023 On the basis of secret information, a raid was conducted at Ring
road, near Bus terminal Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi and one Asad
Ali was apprehended. During the search 600 activated mobile
sim cards (400Jio and 200 Airtel), which were hidden in a
talcum powder box were found in his possession. During the
interrogation he stated that these Sim cards have been procured
fraudulently in the name of other people and are being used by
cyber criminals to commit crime. He has also stated that he had
bought these sim cards from one Abdul Halim R/o Barpeta
Assam by the rate of Rs. 200/- per sim card and now he was on
his way to Bharatpur, Rajasthan for selling them to one Ali
Mohammad @Jibbhu for the rate of Rs. 350/- per sim card.
Subsequently the FIR No.250/2023 U/s 420/467/468/120-B
Indian Penal Code 1860 got registered on 19.10.2023 by ASI
Muhammad Talim. Thereafter, the Investigation was taken up
by Insp. Rajeev Bamal.
20.10.2023 That the Accused Asad Ali was remanded to 6 days police
custody for further interrogation wherein he allegedly stated that
he had deliberately disclosed the wrong name of Ali Mohammad
@ Jibbhu whereas his wife Meena is the one who is involved in
the sale and purchase of all sim cards. He further allegedly stated
that in the last month he had supplied 3000 Fake sim cards to
Meena. During interrogation accused Asad Ali provided the
mobile number of accused Abdul Halim i.e. 6003873634. The
said number was linked with the Airtel Payment bank.
25.10.2023 That on the basis of the alleged statements of the Accused Asad
Ali, a raid was conducted at the house of accused Abdul Halim
 and apprehended him. One mobile phone having IMEI
No.866448056549797 and 866448056549789 was recovered
from his possession and out of 600 recovered sim cards, 32 sim
cards of Airtel and 27 sim cards of Jio (total- 59 Sim cards) were
linked with his mobile no. Another 25 sim cards of Vodafone
idea were recovered from his possession.
26.10.2023 That thereafter, the Accused Abdul Halim was remanded to
Police custody for two days wherein during the interrogation, he
allegedly disclosed the name of the Petitioner stating the
Petitioner to have given him the above-mentioned sim cards.
21.12.2023 That on the basis of the allegations made by Accused Abdul
Halim, the Petitioner was arrested from Kalgachia, Assam
wherein allegedly one phone bearing IMEI no
8658650632295364 was recovered from his possession which
was later found to be linked with 73 mobile numbers, the said
numbers had already been recovered in the alleged case from the
possession of accused Asad Ali.
11.01.2024 That, the Chargesheet has already been filed in the present case
on date.
25.01.2024 That the Petitioner filed Bail Application no. /2023 before
Ms. Deepti Devesh, Ld, CMM, South East District, Saket
Courts, New Delhi which came to be dismissed.
27.03.2024 That aggrieved by the rejection of the Bail, the Petitioner filed
another bail application before Ms. Geetanjali, Ld. ASJ (FTC),
South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi which came to be
dismissed vide Order dated 27.03.2024.
DATE Hence, the Present Revision Petition.
BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. MC NO. OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF
RAJU KHAN …PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI …RESPONDENT

Petition U/s 397 Cr.P.C read with section 482 of Cr.PC against the
Order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the Court of Smt. Geetanjali, Ld.
ASJ, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi wherein the Bail
Application filed by the Applicant/Accused u/s 439 Cr.P.C was
dismissed.
Most Respectfully Showeth:
1. the Petitioner is innocent and a law-abiding citizen. He has a clean
record with no criminal antecedents and is a respectable member of
the society. He is a permanent resident of Kalgachia, Barpeta,
Assam having his business and immovable properties. He was
arrested on 21.12.2023 and has already been in custody for several
months.
2. That the Petitioner was the sole bread winner of the family.
However, since the arrest of the Petitioner, the Petitioner’s old-aged
father and mother have been left to suffer.
3. That the brief factual matrix of the case are that the present case
pertains to allegation of distribution and circulation of FAKE sim
cards. That initially, the Petitioner’s name was never mentioned in
the FIR and the Petitioner was not a part of the investigation that
took place in the alleged matter.
4. That the Petitioner’s name was revealed by one of the Accused at
later stage of the investigation only to wrongly frame the Petitioner
in the present matter.
5. That the investigation of the matter has been completed and the
Chargesheet has already been filed.
6. That on the basis of the Petitioner’s name been taken by the Accused
the Petitioner was arrested by the Police on 21.12.2023. That the
Petitioner has been in Judicial Custody since then and has never
been out on Bail.
7. That the Petitioner having been in the Judicial Custody for several
months, filed a bail application before Ms. Deepti Devesh, Ld.
CMM, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi which came to
be dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2024.
8. Thereafter, the Petitioner proceeded to file another bail application
filed before Ms. Geetanjali, Ld. ASJ (FTC), South East District,
Saket Court, New Delhi which also came to be dismissed vide order
dated 27.03.2024.
Being aggrieved from the order of dismissal of bail, the petitioner set
forth the following grounds for revising and setting aside the impugned
order.
GROUNDS
9. Because it is a well settled principle of law that Bail is a rule and
jail is an exception which has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in catena of Judgements. It is further essential for this Hon’ble
Court to consider the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in:
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [Gurbaksh Singh
Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565: 1980 SCC (Cri)
465]
 “27. It was observed that the principle to be deduced from the
various sections in the Criminal Procedure Code was that grant of
bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. An accused person who
enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after his case
and to properly defend himself than if he were in custody. As a
presumably innocent person he is therefore entitled to freedom and
every opportunity to look after his own case. A presumably innocent
person must have his freedom to enable him to establish his
innocence.”
10.Because it is a well settled principle of law that the object of the Bail
is to secure the appearance of the accused at his trial by reasonable
amount of bail held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra
v. CBl, (2012) 1 SCC 40
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the
earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of
the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The
object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of
liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to
ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon.
The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that
punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to
be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in
custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great
hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some
unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to
secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is
the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the
concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any
 person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he
has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be
deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with
the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary
circumstances.”
11.That further, the reliance is placed on the principle of law laid down
by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in Bharatbhai Jayatilal Shah
v. State, (2012) SCC OnLine Guj 3339 wherein it was held that the
cases pertaining to documentary nature of documents wherein the
substantial amount of it is withheld by the Investigating Agency,
then no good can come out of keeping the accused in Jail.
“23. The papers reveal that the case rests primarily upon documentary
evidence, a substantial amount of which is already with the investigating
agency. It is not a case involving economic offences having national
ramifications. The evidence is a matter of appreciation by the Trial Court and
the law will take its own course. 26. For the aforestated reasons, in my
considered view, it does not prima-facie appear that the grant of anticipatory
bail would hinder or hamper the investigation as the material is documentary in
nature, and most of it is already in the possession of the investigating agency.
Hence, the following order:- 27. The application is allowed…..”
12.Because during the investigation of the matter, upon police
examining the Witnesses (Surendra Juneja and Deepanshu) in the
matter, the Petitioner’s name was never revealed and the Petitioner
was never alleged to have been a part of the captioned crime. That it
is most respectfully submitted that the Petitioner has no role to play
in the present matter and this is only a ploy used by the other
Accused to falsely frame and harm the reputation of the Petitioner in
the society.
13. Because the investigation of the matter had already taken place and
the Chargesheet has been filed by the Police, keeping the Petitioner
in custody any further serves no fruitful purpose.
14.Because during the investigation, nothing incriminating has been
found and/or recovered from the possession of the Petitioner.
15.Because the Petitioner has known the other accused namely Meena,
Asad Ali and Abdul Halim only for business purposed. That the
Petitioner was neither aware of the commission of the said offences
nor was the Petitioner a part of the commission of the said offences.
16. That the Petitioner, in the present matter has been alleged with the
charges u/s 420, 467, 468 and 120B of Indian Penal Code. It is most
respectfully submitted that the chargesheet contains no evidence to
prove the involvement of the Petitioner in commission of the offence
u/s 420 IPC.
17.Because on the bare reading of section 467 IPC, the Petitioner had
not committed forgery of any document or other property. The
Petitioner has legally purchased and sold the sim cards. That there
exists no iota of evidence to prove the allegations against the
Petitioner.
18.Because the Petitioner undertakes to abide by the terms and
conditions if imposed by this Hon’ble court while granting his bail.
19.That the Petitioner is ready to furnish sound surety to the satisfaction
of this hon’ble Court.
20.That the Petitioner hereby undertakes to face the trail and to appear
before the Hon’ble Court on every date of hearing.

PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court that in
view of the abovementioned facts and circumstances of the present matter
this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
1. Set aside the Order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the Court of Smt.
Geetanjali, Ld. ASJ, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi
and
2. Set aside the Order dated 25.01.2024 Ms. Deepti Devesh, Ld.
CMM, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
3. Pass any other order/orders that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.

PETITIONER( IN JC )
Through
Adeel Ahmed
14, Lawyers Chamber
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi – 110001