Bhim Yadav - Latest With Changes Incorporated

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. M.C. NO.__________/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
BHIM YADAV ……. PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE …… RESPONDENT
NOTICE OF MOTION
Sir/ Ma’am,
Please take notice of the accompanying Criminal Misc. Petition, filed on

behalf of the Petitioner and is likely to be listed on _____ or any date,
thereafter. Please take notice accordingly.
Through
Bharat Chugh, Sai Krishna and Roopali Mohan

(Advocates for the Petitioners)
I-5, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi
PH: +91-9582185888 Email: saikrishnakumar26@gmail.com
Dated: .08.2021
Place: Delhi
CRL. M.C. NO.__________/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
URGENT APPLICATION
To,
The Registrar,
Delhi High Court,
New Delhi
Sir,
Would you kindly treat the accompanying Petition as urgent as per the
High court rules and regulations. The grounds of urgency are:
“Vide the impugned order, the Ld.ASJ-02, Patiala House Court,
New Delhi has declined to interfere with the order of Ld. MM-05,
Patiala House Court, which has erroneously declared the Petitioner
as ‘absconder’ which order has grave personal liberty implications
for the Petitioner.”
Through

(Advocates for the Petitioner)
Dated: .08.2021
Place: Delhi
CRL. M.C. NO.__________/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS
COURT FEE
Through

Dated: .08.2021
Place: Delhi
N THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL. M.C. NO.__________/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS
MEMO OF PARTIES
1. Bhim Yadav
R/O Bunglow No.01, Park Street
Global Eco City, 135-A, Beeranwas,
Alwar, Rajasthan
Email:-
Ph: …..Petitioner
Versus
1. State of NCT Delhi through
Standing Counsel
Email:-
Ph:
Through

Dated: .08.2021
Place: Delhi
CRL. M.C. NO.__________/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS
SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
The Petitioner is constrained to file the present Petition u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C.
impugning the Order dated 11.08.2021, wherein the Ld. Additional Sessions
Judge, New Delhi-II has upheld the Order dated 28.06.2021 declaring the
Petitioner an ‘Absconder’ and terming the appearance of the Petitioner before
the Ld. MM-05, Patiala House Court, New Delhi (“Ld. MM”) as a mere
‘fleeting’ and ‘transient’ appearance.
The said Order has been passed without application of judicial mind and the
same suffers from patent illegality, and is contrary to settled principles of law.
That the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR No. 46/2015
registered with the PS: Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. The FIR in question is a
patently civil dispute (arising out of, at best, a breach of contract). On
13.04.2021 proclamation proceedings were issued against the Petitioner

whereby the Petitioner was asked to appear before the Ld. MM on or before
09.06.2021.
Being a law-abiding citizen and having no intention to evade the process of
law, on becoming aware of the process u/s 82 of the Cr.P.C., the Petitioner,
through his counsel, immediately moved an application for cancellation/ stay of
proceedings u/s 82 of the Cr.P.C.
The said application was listed for hearing on 11.05.2021 before the Ld.MM,
and the Petitioner duly appeared through Video Conferencing before the Ld.
MM and, in light of Petitioner’s appearance, the said proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C
were stayed until 18.05.2021.
The matter was then again listed on 28.05.2021, 09.06.2021, and 10.06.2021.
Despite the Petitioner’s recorded appearance, the Ld. MM, vide an Order dated
28.06.2021, erroneously went on to declare the Petitioner an ‘Absconder’. This
is despite the fact that the very proclamation issued directed the Petitioner to
appear before the Court on or before 09.06.2021, which was duly complied
with.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.MM, the Petitioner moved a Revision Petition
before the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-II, New Delhi District impugning the
order of the Ld.MM dated 28.06.2021.
The said Revision Petition was dismissed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge,
vide the impugned order dated 11.08.2021 (“Impugned Order”) on the

erroneous premise that the appearance before the Ld.MM was not adequate
appearance and merely a ‘transient’ or ‘fleeting’ appearance. These
observations are patently erroneous, and untenable, as it is settled law that if an
accused enters appearance before the completion of proceedings u/s 82 of the
Cr.P.C (and before being declared an ‘absconder’), the proceedings u/s 82 of
the Cr.P.C are liable to be set aside.
DATE EVENT
07.04.2015 The FIR in question was registered against Directors of
Falcon Reality Services, Bhim Yadav & Shelly
Sharma, on complaint of one Mr. Colonel Virender
Sahani. That, during the course of the investigation,
the Petitioner had appeared before the Investigating
Officer as and when called upon, and provided all
information as sought from them, in the investigation
of the case.
06.03.2021 A notice u/s 41A of the Cr.P.C dated 4.03.2021,
addressed to the Petitioner, was sent to his address in
Rajasthan and was served through a guard named Mr.
Ramkishan. As per the same notice, the Petitioner was
asked to appear before the Investigating Officer on
10.03.2021 at 15:00 Hrs.

10.03.2021 That on account of ill-health of his wife, who was
displaying symptoms of COVID-19, the Petitioner
isolated himself in quarantine, and as a result could not
join the investigation.

16.03.2021 That the Investigating Officer moved an application
seeking issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants (“NBWs”)
against the Petitioner and the same were issued,
returnable on 13.04.2021.
13.04.2021 That proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were
initiated on an Application by the Investigating Officer
to compel the appearance of the Accused persons,
returnable on 09.06.2021. Notably, the Application
does not spell out the attempts, if any, made by the IO
for execution of the aforesaid NBWs.

07.05.2021 That the Accused persons, aggrieved by the above,
moved an Application for cancellation/stay of Section
82 Cr.P.C. proceedings, spelling out the reasons for
their inability to appear. The Accused persons
undertake to co-operate in the investigation of the case
and submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the
Hon’ble Court.
11.05.2021 Pursuant to the above application, the proceedings
under section 82 Cr.P.C. were stayed by the Ld.MM,
till the next date of hearing, i.e., 18.05.2021. The
Accused persons duly appeared along with their

advocate through video conferencing, before the Ld.
MM.
28.05.2021 The said stay Order u/s 82 Cr.P.C. was extended till
09.06.2021 due to preponement of the summer
vacations of the Ld. Trial Courts, at the direction of
this Hon’ble Court. Meanwhile, the Ld. MM-05 had
directed the Investigating Officer to verify the medical
documents provided by the Petitioner herein.

09.06.2021 The Investigating Officer filed a status report before
the Ld. MM-05 and stated that the Doctor concerned
denied issuing the Medical Certificate/prescription.

10.06.2021 The Ld. MM dismissed the Application filed by the
Petitioner (seeking stay of proceedings u/s 82 CrPC),
and directed the reader of the court to lodge a formal
complaint against the Petitioner and his wife.

28.06.2021 In the meanwhile, the Ld. MM-05, Patiala House
Court, New Delhi passed an Order erroneously
declaring the Petitioner an ‘Absconder’, despite his
appearance before the Ld. MM-05 during the
adjudication of his Application for stay of Section 82
Cr.P.C proceedings.
22.07.2021 Revision Petition was filed by the Petitioner before the
Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-02, Patiala House
Court, New Delhi (Ld.ASJ), impugning the Order
dated 28.06.2021.
11.08.2021 Vide the Impugned Order, the Ld. Additional Sessions
Judge-02, Patiala House Court, New Delhi erroneously
and contrary to the settled principles of law, upheld the
Order dated 28.06.2021 and dismissed the Revision
Petition filed by the Petitioner, and imposed a cost of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only).
Through

(Advocates for the Petitioner)
CRL. M.C. NO.__________/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS
PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 Cr.P.C. SEEKING QUASHING AND
SETTING ASIDE OF THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2021 PASSED BY
THE LD. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, PATIALA HOUSE
COURT, NEW DELHI IN CRL. Rev Petition NO. 224/2021 IN THE
MATTER TITLED “BHIM YADAV V. STATE”
To,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE & HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER NAMED AS

ABOVE
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. The Petitioner is constrained to file the present petition against the
Order dated 11.08.2021, wherein the Ld. ASJ-02, Patiala House
Court, New Delhi upheld the Order of the Ld. MM-05, Patiala House
Court, New Delhi dated 28.06.2021, declaring the Petitioner an
‘Absconder’. The said declaration is patently erroneous, and
untenable, as it is settled law that if an accused enters appearance
before the completion of proceedings u/s 82 of the Cr.P.C (and before
being declared an “Absconder”), the proceedings u/s 82 of the Cr.P.C
are liable to be set aside. The copy of the impugned Order dated
11.08.2021 is marked as Annexure-P-1.
2. That the brief conspectus of facts relevant to the instant Revision
Petition are laid out herein below:
2.1. That the Petitioner Applicant has been falsely implicated in the
FIR No. 46/2015 registered with the PS: Barakhamba Road, New
Delhi. That during the investigation, the Petitioner had appeared
before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon, and
provided all information as sought from them, for the investigation
of the case. That a notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C was issued by
the Investigating Officer of the PS: Barakhamba Road, New
Delhi, to the Petitioner, asking him to join the investigation on
10.03.2021. The copy of the FIR no.46/2015 registered with the
Barkhamba Road, Police Station, New Delhi is annexed herewith
as Annexure P-2.
2.2. That the Petitioner was unable to appear before the Investigating
Officer as his wife was unwell. As the Petitioner’s wife was
displaying symptoms of COVID-19 and that the pandemic was at

its peak at the time, the Petitioner was under quarantine and not
able to travel, as doing so was not advisable and would put others
at risk.
2.3. That despite his inability to travel to Delhi, due to the ongoing
pandemic, the Petitioner, through his counsel, had submitted the
requisite documents that were needed by the Investigating Officer
in the above-mentioned FIR. The Petitioner cooperated with the
Investigating Officer and aided him in the investigation he was
conducting.
2.4. That the Investigating Officer, despite the Petitioner's efforts to
co-operate in the investigation and provide all requisite
documents, moved an application seeking initiation of proceedings
under section 82 of the Cr.P.C against the Petitioner and his wife.
2.5. That on 13.04.2021, proclamation proceedings were issued against
the Petitioner and the Petitioner was asked to appear before the
Ld. MM on or before 09.06.2021.
2.6. That on receiving the notice u/s 82 of the Cr.P.C., the Petitioner,
through his counsel, immediately moved an Application for
cancellation/ stay of Section 82 proceedings and the said
Application was listed for adjudication on 11.05.2021. That on the
date fixed, the Applicant also appeared through video
conferencing before the Ld. Trial Court and the said proceedings
were stayed until 18.05.2021. The said Order dated 11.05.2021
has been annexed herewith as Annexure-P-3.
2.7. That the said Application could not be taken up due to
preponement of the summer vacation. Thereafter, the said
Application was taken up for adjudication on 28.05.2021, with a
direction to the Investigating Officer to verify the medical
documents annexed by the Petitioner. As per a report filed by the
IO, the medical document was found to be false.
2.8. That, despite appearance, and contrary to settled principle of law
in that regard, the Ld. MM-05, Patiala House Court, New Delhi
district on 10.06.2021 dismissed the Application for
cancellation/stay of Section 82 proceedings moved by the present
Petitioner and further asked the reader of the court to lodge an
official complaint, with the SHO Tilak Marg.
2.9. That the Petitioner had, in the meanwhile, moved a Revision
Petition against the Order dated 10.06.2021.
2.10. While the Revision Petition was being adjudicated, the Ld. MM
had, vide an Order dated 28.06.2021, declared the Petitioner and
his wife ‘Absconders’ without considering that the Petitioner had
already appeared before the Ld. MM at the time of hearing the
application challenging the Section 82 proceedings mentioned
above. The said Order declaring the Petitioner as an ‘Absconder’
dated 28.06.2021 is annexed herewith as Annexure-P-4.

Thereafter on 03.07.2021, the said Revision Petition was
dismissed by the Principal Distt. & Session Judge being against a,
concededly, interlocutory order.
2.11. That, the Petitioner moved a Revision Petition before the Ld.
Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi District, challenging the
Order dated 28.06.2021, wherein the Petitioner was erroneously
declared an ‘Absconder’. The said Revision Petition was
dismissed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, thereby
upholding the Order dated 28.06.2021 and a cost was imposed
upon the Petitioner for vexatious filing of petitions before the
Hon’ble Court. The same was done without taking into account
the facts and circumstances of the Petitioner, and in contravention
to the settled law to the effect that if an accused enters appearance
before the completion of proceedings u/s 82 of the Cr.P.C, the
proceedings u/s 82 of the Cr.P.C are liable to be set aside.
3. The facts of the present case as enumerated in the Complaint do not
prima facie disclose any offence made out against Petitioner and the
same is, at best, a civil case of breach of contract.
4. That being aggrieved by the impugned Order of the Ld. Additional
Sessions Judge upholding the Order dated 28.06.2021, which declared
the Petitioner as an ‘Absconder’, the Petitioners are constrained to
approach this Hon’ble Court. The Petitioners, in support of the instant
Petition, seek to rely on, but are not limited to, the following grounds:
5. GROUNDS:
5.1 Because the Impugned Order failed to take into consideration that
the Petitioner had indeed appeared before the Ld. MM-05 at the
time of adjudication of the Application for cancellation/ stay of
Section 82 Cr.P.C proceedings on 11.05.2021. The matter was
then listed again 28.05.2021, 09.06.2021 and10.05.2021. The
Order dated 11.05.2021 also records the presence of the Petitioner
before the Hon’ble Court. That having appeared before the
Hon’ble Court with an explanation for earlier non-appearance,
much before the stipulated date of 09.06.2021, the proceedings u/s
82 CrPC could not have been continued. Reliance in this regard is
placed on the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Veer Mahadev
Singh Khalsa v. State Through CBI 2003 (2) JCC 661 which held
that- “Purpose of issuance of bailable warrants/non-bailable
warrants/proceedings U/s 82/83 is to secure attendance of the
petitioner/accused on the date fixed, the same would be served if
the petitioner/accused appears before the learned Trial Court on
his own and the same has been held by the Hon’ble High Court in
its judgments titled as Praveen Juneja v. State of Delhi & Anr-
118(2005)DLT 28.”
5.2 Because the Impugned Order failed to take into consideration that,
even in the subsequent hearings, the Petitioner had appeared

before the Ld. Trial Court through his counsel. Since the petitioner
was represented through his counsel, it is not a case where he is
absconding and evading the court process. Reliance is placed upon
the case of Sanjay Chaturvedi vs. State 2006 SCC OnLine Del
1126 (Para no.8) in this regard.
5.3 Because the Impugned Order erroneously characterizes the
presence of the Petitioner before the Ld. MM as a mere
“transient” or “fleeting” appearance. This is despite the fact that
judicial proceedings across Delhi are being conducted on video
conference, and therefore, the presence of the Petitioner in the
video conference must be considered equivalent to him being
physically present in Court.
5.4 BECAUSE the proceedings u/s 82 of the CrPC were initiated and
concluded hastily, and without any application of mind.
Proceedings u/s 82 of the CrPC have a grave implication on the
life and personal liberty of an accused person. Despite Accused’s
appearance in the Court, the said proceedings were initiated and,
resultantly, an accused who was present before the Court was
declared an “Absconder”. Reliance in this regard is placed on the
recent decision in Kunwar Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (Case No. 2261 of 2021, Dated
18.08.2021) wherein it was observed that “it is important for the
magistrate to not pass such order in a routine manner, on the

simple application of the investigating officer. The application
should be supported by an affidavit of the investigating officer
stating the reasons why NBW and proclamation under section 82
Cr.P.C is required as it relates to the persona liberty of a person
guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution of India.”
5.5 Reliance in this regard is also placed upon Md. Rustum Alam vs.
the State of Jharkhand Cr.M.P. No. 2722 of 2019, wherein it was
observed that, " Thus, when the relief of anticipatory bail is
curtailed, as a consequence of an order passed under Section 82
of the Code, declaring a person absconder, the said order cannot
be passed in mechanical manner without recording satisfaction
and reasons nor can the same be passed without following the
procedure as laid down in the Code. In view of the aforesaid
circumstances and the consequence one has to face, the Court
has to be very cautious while issuing an order Section 82 of the
CrPC.” The need for extra care and caution while issuing an
order under Section 82 of the C.r.P.C., in line with the intent of
the law, was also highlighted by this Hon’ble Court in the case of
Sunil Tyagi vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [2021 SCC Online Del
3479].
5.6 BECAUSE the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge and The Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate failed to take into account that the wife
of the Petitioner was ill with symptoms of COVID-19 and NCT

of Delhi was dealing with the deadly pandemic, the Petitioner
could not have appeared before the Investigating Officer or the
Hon’ble Court as he was in quarantine.
5.7 BECAUSE the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned
Order, burdened the Petitioner with heavy cost of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees one Lakh only) for filing vexatious petitions before the
Court. It is pertinent to mention that a mischievous approach
cannot be attributed to the Petitioner merely because he was using
his legal right to invoke the jurisdiction of revision available to
him on reasonable grounds.
5.8 BECAUSE the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, vide passing the
impugned Order, seemed to be prejudiced/ unduly swayed by the
observation of the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate Court that the
medical documents were fabricated. It is pertinent to mention that
mere refusal by the Doctor to produce documents cannot be
considered as fabrication of the medical prescription as the same
contains the signature and stamp of the doctor on 08.03.2021 at
DTE OF HEALTH SERVICES, GOVT OF DELHI. It is also a
possibility that as Delhi was one of the worst hit cities by the
COVID-19 Pandemic, every hospital/doctors clinic was
overburdened, overwhelmed and understaffed, which certainly
could have been the reason for the non-entry of the Petitioners/his
wife’s name in the daily OPD register.

5.9 BECAUSE the entire transaction on which the FIR is registered is
a civil dispute and at best a case of breach of contract between the
deceased Complainant and the Petitioner. Yet, a criminal
complaint was filed by the deceased Complainant to coerce the
Petitioner into accepting his illicit demands.
5.10 BECAUSE a Memorandum of Understanding was signed
between the Petitioner herein and the Complainant whereby the
dispute of failure to deliver the possession of properties was
settled and the same has been partly complied with. It is only
after the death of the complainant that the petitioner has not been
able to provide the remaining part of the payment as they were
not provided with relevant details to facilitate the payment into
accounts of the various joint holders of the properties along with
deceased complainant as per the original agreement.
5.11 BECAUSE in the light of the above mentioned, it is submitted
that the instant case is a fit case for the Hon’ble Court to set aside
the impugned Order. It is evident that the Impugned Order has led
the Petitioner to face the consequences of being declared an
‘Absconder’ at the behest of a process which was initiated and
completed in a mechanical manner, and in complete disregard of
settled principles of law. Further, it is settled law that under the
inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court u/s 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code,1973, this Court has the power to set aside the
relevant impugned Order passed by the Sessions Court, which is
patently illegal and if allowed to stand, would frustrate the ends of
justice and mete out irreparable damage to the Petitioner.
5.12 That the Petitioners crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to urge any
additional ground that would be made available to them at the
time of hearing of this Petition.
6. That no such similar type of the Petition has been filed before this
Hon’ble Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, or in any
other High Court.
PRAYER:
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, it
is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be
pleased to: -
a. Allow the instant Petition under 482 Cr.P.C and set aside the
Impugned Order dated 11.08.2021 passed by the Ld. Additional
Sessions Judge-02, Patiala House Court, New Delhi and quash the
proclamation proceedings initiated against the Petitioner, vide
Order dated 28.06.2021 by the Ld. MM-05, Patiala House Court,
New Delhi,
b. Set aside the Order of depositing the cost of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Only) with Lawyers Welfare Fund, New Delhi
District.
c. Pass any further Order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.
It is prayed accordingly.
Through

CRL. M.C NO.__________/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
BHIM YADAV ……. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Bhim Yadav, aged about___ years, S/o Shri Raj Balam Yadav R/O Bunglow No.1,
Park Street Global Eco City, 135-A, Beeranwas, Alwar, Rajasthan-301702 do hereby
solemnly affirm and state as under:
1. That the deponent is the Petitioner in the present case and is well conversant of
the facts of the case and so is competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the accompanying petition under section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing/ setting
aside of the order dated 11.08.2021 in Crl. Rev Petition No. 214/2021passed by Ld.
Additional Sessions Judge-II, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi has been drafted as
per my instructions.
3. That the contents of the said petition has been read over and explained to the
deponent and the deponent confirms that the contents of the same are true and correct
to my knowledge.
4. That the contents of the said accompanying petition are not been repeated
herein for the sake of brevity and the same be read as part and parcel of this affidavit.
5. That the contents of the petition from Para 1 to Para __ are to the best of my
knowledge and the same bornes out from the Trial court record or from documents
filed along with the present petition.
6. That no earlier similar petition under section 482 Cr.P.C for the 11.08.2021 in
Crl. Rev Petition No. 214/2021passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-II, Patiala
House Courts, New Delhi has been filed by the deponent in this Hon’ble court or in
the Hon’ble Supreme court of India or in any other High court.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at _______on this _______ day of ________, 2021 that the contents of
the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and no part
of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
CRL. M.C. NO.__________/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE FOR GRANT OF EX-PARTE AND AD INTERIM STAY
ON THE ORDER 28.06.2021 PASSED BY THE LD. METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE IN FIR NO.46/2015 REGISTERED WITH THE PS:
BARAKHAMBHA ROAD DECLARING THE PETITIONER AN
‘ABSCONDER’ AT HIS ADDRESS
To,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE & HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER NAMED AS

ABOVE
1. That the Petitioner have preferred the above stated Criminal Misc.
Petition, challenging the Order dated 11.08.2021, passed by the Ld.
Additional Sessions Judge-II, Patiala House Court, New Delhi District,
whereby the Order dated 28.06.2021 has been upheld by the Ld.
Additional Sessions Judge and the Petitioner has been declared an
‘Absconder’.
2. That full facts of the case have been enumerated in the accompanying
Criminal Misc. Petition and the same are not being reproduced herein
for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition. The Petitioners crave
indulgence of this Hon’ble Court that the same may be read as part and
parcel of this Application.
3. That the bare perusal of the accompanying Petition and grounds urged
by the Petitioner before this Hon’ble Court clearly reveal that the
impugned Order is liable to be set aside as the Ld. MM has not passed
the Order keeping in mind the settled principles of law. That the
Petitioner had appeared before the Ld. MM-05 and despite his
appearance before the Court he has been declared an ‘Absconder’ at his
address.
4. That the Petitioner, prima facie, has a good and arguable case and the
Petition is likely to be accepted in all probabilities. That during the
COVID-19 pandemic, the Courts have been conducted virtually and the
Petitioner could not have made a physical appearance before the Ld.
MM-05 on the date of hearing.
5. That in the present matter, the stay can be granted to the Petitioner as he
seeks the stay of operation of the Order dated 28.06.2021, which violate
the basic rights of the Petitioner and have put him in jeopardy.
6. It is submitted that in the instant case, keeping in mind the lack of
application of mind, the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has passed the
Order declaring the Petitioner an ‘Absconder’. Thereby, a failure of
justice has been occasioned in respect of the Petitioner, and his personal
liberty has been put at stake. The omissions and errors in the Order have
also resulted in a failure of justice in respect of the Petitioner, and
continuance of the Order would be a total abuse of the process of Court
and would continue the gross miscarriage of justice. That the balance of
convenience also lies in favor of the Petitioner as irreparable injury and
incalculable harm would be caused to the reputation and goodwill of the
Petitioner if the proceedings in the above-mentioned case are not stayed
by an ex-parte ad interim Order.
7. That in case the operation of the Order is not stayed, the ends of justice
would not be secured and the very purpose of filing the Petition will be
defeated. As such, further operation of the Order furnishing bail bonds
should be stayed.
PRAYER:
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of
justice, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
graciously be pleased to: -

a. Grant ex-parte and interim stay Order in favor of the Petitioner,
thereby staying the Order dated 28.06.2021 passed by the Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate in FIR no.46/2015, registered with the PS:
Barakhambha Road, declaring the Petitioner an ‘Absconder’ at his
address.
b. Pass any further Order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.
It is prayed accordingly.
Through

Dated: .08.2021
Place: Delhi
CRL. M.AC NO.__________/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
1. That the deponent is the Applicant in the present case and is well conversant of
2. That the accompanying Application under section 482 Cr.P.C for stay of order
declaring the petitioner ‘Absconder’ dated 28.06.2021 passed by Ld. MM-05, Patiala
House Court, New Delhi.
3. That the contents of the said Application has been read over and explained to
the deponent and the deponent confirms that the contents of the same are true and
correct to my knowledge.
4. That the contents of the said accompanying Application are not been repeated
6. That no earlier similar Applicatiom under section 482 Cr.P.C for the stay of
order dated 28.06.2021 passed by Ld. MM-05, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi has
been filed by the deponent in this Hon’ble court or in the Hon’ble Supreme court of
India or in any other High court.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
DEPONENT
CRL. M.C. NO.__________/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER FOR EXEMPTION

FROM FILING THE NOTARISED AND ATTESTED COPIES OF THE
AFFIDAVITS PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER DUE TO THE ONGOING
COVID-19 PANDEMIC
1. That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying before this Hon’ble Court. The
contents of the same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity and
the same may kindly be read as a part and parcel of this application.
2. That for the proper adjudication of the present matter, the Petitioner has
submitted affidavits ascertaining its claims in the accompanying complaint and
due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, there is lockdown and restriction on
the movement in the State of NCT OF Delhi and therefore, the Petitioner is not
in a position to submit the attested and notarised copies of the affidavits before
this Hon’ble Court.
3. That the present application is bona fide and in the interest of justice and the
Authorised Representative of the Complainant undertakes to file the signed and
notarised affidavits within 72 hours of the restriction on movement being
removed by the State of NCT Delhi.
PRAYER
It is therefore prayed that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the
interest of justice, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to exempt the Complainant from
filing the affidavits which are not attested and notarised.
Through

Dated: .08.2021
Place: Delhi
CRL. M.C. NO.__________/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
2. That the accompanying Application under section 482 Cr.P.C for exemption
from filing notarized affidavit along with the petition.
6. That no earlier similar Application under section 482 Cr.P.C for the exemption
from filing notarized affidavits has been filed by the deponent in this Hon’ble court or
in the Hon’ble Supreme court of India or in any other High court.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
DEPONENT
CRL. M.C. NO.__________/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS
The humble Petition of the Petitioner abovenamed
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER FOR EXEMPTION

FROM FILING THE DIM ILLEGIBILE ANNEXURES, CERTIFIED COPIES
OF ORDERS AND TRUE TYPED COPY OF THE ANNEXURES
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That the Petitioner have preferred the above stated Criminal Misc. Petition,
challenging the Order dated 11.08.2021, passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-
II, Patiala House Court, New Delhi District, whereby the Order dated 28.06.2021 has
been upheld by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge and the Petitioner has been declared
an ‘Absconder’ at his address.
2. That the Applicant has stated the facts of the case and the grounds arising
therefrom in the accompanying Petition and the same may be treated as part and
parcel of this Application.
3. That in the above mentioned matter the Petitioner is filing the photocopy of the
original documents and hence the annexures are not having the proper margin and
spacing. In view of the same the Petitioner is praying for accepting the Annexures as it
is in the interest of justice.
4. That the present application is made bonafide and to further the cause of
justice.
PRAYER
In view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, the Applicant respectfully
prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a) Exempt the Petitioner from filing proper margin and spacing and dim and hand
written annexures during the pendency of the Crl. Misc Petition in the interest of
justice;
b) Such other Order or Orders be passed as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPLICANT AS IN DUTYBOUND
SHALL EVER PRAY.
Through

Dated: .08.2021
Place: Delhi
CRL. M.C. NO.__________/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
2. That the accompanying Application under section 482 Cr.P.C for exemption
from filing certified copies, dim and illegible annexures and true typed copies.
knowledge and the same borne out from the Trial court record or from documents
6. That no earlier similar Application under section 482 Cr.P.C for exemption
from filing certified copies, dim and illegible annexures and true typed copies has
been filed by the deponent in this Hon’ble court or in the Hon’ble Supreme court of
India or in any other High court.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
DEPONENT

Bhim Yadav - Latest With Changes Incorporated

Uploaded by

Bhim Yadav - Latest With Changes Incorporated

Uploaded by

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL. M.C. NO.__________/2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

BHIM YADAV ……. PETITIONER

Please take notice of the accompanying Criminal Misc. Petition, filed on

Bharat Chugh, Sai Krishna and Roopali Mohan

IN THE MATTER OF:

Bharat Chugh, Sai Krishna and Roopali Mohan

IN THE MATTER OF:

BHIM YADAV ……. PETITIONER

Bharat Chugh, Sai Krishna and Roopali Mohan

BHIM YADAV ……. PETITIONER

Bharat Chugh, Sai Krishna and Roopali Mohan

IN THE MATTER OF:

BHIM YADAV ……. PETITIONER

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

Petitioner an ‘Absconder’ and terming the appearance of the Petitioner before

‘fleeting’ and ‘transient’ appearance.

patently civil dispute (arising out of, at best, a breach of contract). On

13.04.2021 proclamation proceedings were issued against the Petitioner

Being a law-abiding citizen and having no intention to evade the process of

through his counsel, immediately moved an application for cancellation/ stay of

proceedings u/s 82 of the Cr.P.C.

MM and, in light of Petitioner’s appearance, the said proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C

were stayed until 18.05.2021.

28.06.2021, erroneously went on to declare the Petitioner an ‘Absconder’. This

order of the Ld.MM dated 28.06.2021.

vide the impugned order dated 11.08.2021 (“Impugned Order”) on the

appearance and merely a ‘transient’ or ‘fleeting’ appearance. These

observations are patently erroneous, and untenable, as it is settled law that if an

accused enters appearance before the completion of proceedings u/s 82 of the

Cr.P.C (and before being declared an ‘absconder’), the proceedings u/s 82 of

the Cr.P.C are liable to be set aside.

Falcon Reality Services, Bhim Yadav & Shelly

Sharma, on complaint of one Mr. Colonel Virender

Sahani. That, during the course of the investigation,

the Petitioner had appeared before the Investigating

Officer as and when called upon, and provided all

information as sought from them, in the investigation

addressed to the Petitioner, was sent to his address in

Rajasthan and was served through a guard named Mr.

Ramkishan. As per the same notice, the Petitioner was

asked to appear before the Investigating Officer on

10.03.2021 at 15:00 Hrs.

displaying symptoms of COVID-19, the Petitioner

isolated himself in quarantine, and as a result could not

join the investigation.

seeking issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants (“NBWs”)

against the Petitioner and the same were issued,

initiated on an Application by the Investigating Officer

to compel the appearance of the Accused persons,

returnable on 09.06.2021. Notably, the Application

does not spell out the attempts, if any, made by the IO

for execution of the aforesaid NBWs.

moved an Application for cancellation/stay of Section

82 Cr.P.C. proceedings, spelling out the reasons for

their inability to appear. The Accused persons

undertake to co-operate in the investigation of the case

and submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the

under section 82 Cr.P.C. were stayed by the Ld.MM,

till the next date of hearing, i.e., 18.05.2021. The

Accused persons duly appeared along with their

09.06.2021 due to preponement of the summer

vacations of the Ld. Trial Courts, at the direction of

this Hon’ble Court. Meanwhile, the Ld. MM-05 had

directed the Investigating Officer to verify the medical

documents provided by the Petitioner herein.

the Ld. MM-05 and stated that the Doctor concerned

denied issuing the Medical Certificate/prescription.

Petitioner (seeking stay of proceedings u/s 82 CrPC),

and directed the reader of the court to lodge a formal

complaint against the Petitioner and his wife.

Court, New Delhi passed an Order erroneously

declaring the Petitioner an ‘Absconder’, despite his

appearance before the Ld. MM-05 during the

adjudication of his Application for stay of Section 82