Latest news with #RavinderDudeja
Indian Express
11-07-2025
- Indian Express
Narcotics Control Bureau moves Delhi HC against trial court order on furnishing cell location data of investigating officers in drug trafficking case
The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) has moved the Delhi High Court seeking a stay on a trial court order directing it to preserve and disclose the Cell Location ID charts and mobile data of its investigating officers (IOs). While the agency submitted that such disclosure 'poses a serious threat to operational confidentiality, national security and ongoing investigation', Justice Ravinder Dudeja on Tuesday sought a response from a drug trafficking case accused, on whose application the trial court had issued the directions. The high court has posted the matter next for consideration on October 9. The accused, Naveen Fogat, was booked in July 2023 in a pan-India probe into parcels of LSD, a hallucinogenic drug, seized from a courier facility. Fogat was allegedly involved in shipping the LSD and drug trafficking. However, Fogat, represented by advocate Aditya Giri, told the high court on Tuesday that there were custodial irregularities preceding his formal arrest in 2023, following which he had filed an application under Section 94 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking the location data of the NCB investigating officers to substantiate his claims. Arguing before the HC, Fogat submitted that Cell Location ID charts would help reveal the alleged custodial irregularities committed by NCB investigating officers Chetan Sharma and Amit Kumar Tiwary. On May 21 this year, after charges were framed before the trial court, Fogat filed an application before the special Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act court seeking the preservation and production of call detail records and tower location charts of the mobile phone belonging to him, his relatives, and the two investigating officers. Fogat had cited irregularities in the probe process, including the recording of his disclosure statement, and alleged that he was illegally detained, submitting that it was in the interest of presenting a fair defence that he be provided with the details as sought. The trial court on July 4 had allowed the request, after observing that there are 'prima facie doubts upon the investigating agency's conduct regarding the arrest and surrounding circumstances' and directed the agency to provide the details. The NCB has now challenged the trial court's order, seeking that the same be quashed and set aside. The NCB, in its petition, has argued that 'producing IOs' Cell Location charts reveals surveillance patterns, beat routes and static positions of undercover officers, compromising ongoing narcotics investigations,' and has also claimed protection under the right to privacy. Notably, the trial court, in its direction, had stated that the details of the cell location ID chart for the IOs shall not bear details of their personal/official numbers and will be redacted prior to filing the records before the court, which shall remain in a sealed cover. 'Article 21's protection of the right to life and personal liberty encompasses privacy interests in personal and operational data, including that of government officers,' NCB's petition states. NCB has also submitted that such details of the IOs shall 'also expose movements and meeting points of secret informers, breaching their expectation of confidentiality and placing their lives at risk'.
Time of India
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Excise policy case: HC seeks ED's response on Kejriwal's plea challenging summons
New Delhi: on Wednesday sought the 's response on a plea by former CM challenging the summons issued to him in a money laundering case related to the alleged excise policy scam in the capital. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Justice Ravinder Dudeja asked ED to file the counter affidavit within six weeks. During the hearing, ED raised a preliminary objection over the maintainability of the petition, but the high court asked the agency to raise everything, including the preliminary objection, in its reply and listed the matter for hearing on Sept 10. Kejriwal challenged a special court order dated Sept 17, 2024, by which his revision petition against a March 7, 2024, order of a magisterial court summoning him was dismissed. Besides, the ex-CM also challenged a sessions court order which upheld an Oct 24 order of a magistrate refusing to transfer his case to another court. Even in this case, the high court issued notice on the second petition and asked ED to file its response within six weeks. It listed the matter for the same date while ED said the special court order was challenged after a delay of almost 10 months. Last year in June, Kejriwal was granted bail by a trial court in the money laundering case, but it was later stayed by the high court on the ED's plea. However, a month later, Supreme Court granted interim bail to the AAP convener while referring to a larger bench three questions on the aspect of "need and necessity of arrest" under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The ED's money laundering case stems from an FIR lodged by Central Bureau of Investigation after Delhi lieutenant governor VK Saxena recommended a probe into the alleged irregularities in the implementation of the 2021-22 Delhi excise policy. According to ED and CBI, irregularities were allegedly committed while modifying the excise policy, and undue favours were extended to the licence holders. Delhi govt implemented the policy on Nov 17, 2021 and scrapped it by the end of Sept 2022 amid allegations of corruption.
Time of India
06-07-2025
- Time of India
Anticipatory bail should be granted in exceptional cases: Delhi HC
The power to grant anticipatory bail is an exceptional power and should be exercised only in exceptional cases , the Delhi High Court has said. Justice Ravinder Dudeja made the observation while denying the anticipatory bail to Ashish Kumar, a New Friends Colony resident accused of assaulting his cousin in a property dispute matter, saying "the law aides only those who abide by law". The judge said he was required for the purpose of custodial interrogation and for the recovery of weapon of offence. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Join new Free to Play WWII MMO War Thunder War Thunder Play Now Undo "The power of grant of anticipatory bail is an exceptional power and should be exercised only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of course," the judge said in an order passed on July 1. The application claimed that Kumar was falsely implicated in the case due to prior property dispute between his and the complainant's family, noting that the applicant had not joined the investigation and NBWs ( non-bailable warrants ) have since been issued against him. Live Events The judge noted the status report filed by prosecution in the case revealed that the complainant had suffered injuries . "No doubt, injured has since been discharged from hospital and injuries have been opined to be simple in nature, but applicant is required for the purpose of custodial interrogation for the recovery of weapon of law aides only those who abide by law," the judge said. The application claimed the incident was the result of provocation by the complainant, who was illegally constructing a kitchen on the disputed property without any authorisation or consent and when the applicant objected, the complainant assaulted the applicant's brother. It further submitted that applicant himself and his mother suffered injuries in the incident, but no cross FIR has been registered against the complainant.
Indian Express
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Excise policy scam case: What's the fear in supplying list of ‘unrelied documents', Delhi HC asks CBI
'What is the fear' in providing the list of 'unrelied upon documents (URDs)', the Delhi High Court orally asked the CBI on Friday while hearing a petition filed by the central agency against a May 22 trial court order in connection with the excise policy scam case. The trial court had directed that summons to produce documents or summons to individuals must be included in the list of URDs. 'Unrelied' documents are collected by probe agencies at the time of investigation but not used as evidence by the prosecution. The CBI has challenged the May 22 Rouse Avenue special CBI court order, which had stated that the court will proceed with the arguments on charges 'once the relied-upon digital evidence copy and the list of URDs are supplied to the accused individuals'. The trial court had reasoned that 'as the CBI must provide copies of relied-upon digital data currently with CFSL (Central Forensic Science Laboratory), this court cannot yet hear arguments on charge, given that all relied-upon documents must be available to the accused before charges'. It had directed that 'all notices under Section 91/160 CrPC and written communications sent by CBI to others, including witnesses and accused, and all written communications/documents received by CBI concerning those notices/written communications, must be included in the list of URDs if CBI does not intend to rely on them in this trial'. Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) empowers police officers to summon individuals to assist in the probe. Directing that the list of URDs should be filed in court, and copies of the list must be supplied to all accused, the trial court had directed that the investigating officer (IO) 'shall file an affidavit confirming that no other such notice/communication/document is omitted from the relied-upon documents or the URD'. Opposing the direction to the IO, the CBI, while arguing before Justice Ravinder Dudeja, also opposed the direction that notices issued to and statements made by the accused under Section 160 of CrPC — before they were considered to be an accused in the case — be considered a part of URDs. The CBI's counsel told HC, 'We have already given whatever we are relying upon, the (special CBI) judge wants the entire data to be given… CrPC sections 91 and 160 are tools of investigation, how can it be given? It is not part of the evidence collected.' 'There cannot be a procedure in the Delhi excise case which is different from any other case… (IO of) CBI has to file an affidavit for (filing all unrelied communication/notices) everything? It is unheard of… Some people have intimate messages and videos, some have competitive information (as businesses are also accused in the case)… There are privacy concerns… Inter se, conflict of privacy in URDs should not stall the trial,' the counsel added. Further opposing the supply of CrPC Section 160 notices and statements of accused recorded prior to them being made accused, the CBI added, 'Once they have been made accused, that statement is not part of relied upon or unrelied upon documents, because those statements can also trample upon somebody's right to self-incrimination.' Justice Dudeja, however, asked the CBI's counsel, '…Point is, why should it not be given… Disclosure statements of accused persons are not made part of the record… Why did you record the statement of the accused at the first instance if you were not going to rely, or not rely on such statements? You can provide the list (of URDs).' While CBI contended that if included in the list of URDs, 'it will then be seen by everybody else', Justice Dudeja orally responded, 'Show then… what is the fear… What is the prejudice being caused to you in case you hand over the copies of the notices under CrPC Section 160? Why do you not want to share these notices?' The CBI contended, 'It is not about fear, it's about what is relevant and not… (If the trial court's directions are upheld) what will happen is, it will become a practice (of including CrPC Section 160 notices) which does not exist at all… It is a roving inquiry.' A defence advocate for the accused, Rajat Bharadwaj, contended before the court, 'The fear is the entire frivolous investigation they have done will come all out in the open. Since past six months, they are not supplying us these documents… thereby these directions have been passed by the trial court.' Another defence advocate, Adit Pujari, added, 'This is a bogey being played (by CBI)… that supply of the list is going to delay arguments on charge…' While an order is awaited, Justice Dudeja indicated that the court is not inclined to stay the order till a status report is filed, all accused are served and their responses to the CBI's petition come on record. The court also indicated that it is agreeable only to the aspect of staying the direction that requires the IO to file an affidavit before the trial court.
Time of India
04-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Premature grant of bail compromises aim of PMLA: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a Hong Kong-based Indian businessman in a PMLA case and said giving the reprieve prematurely impedes investigation and undermines the objective of anti-money laundering law. Justice Ravinder Dudeja denied the relief to Amrit Pal Singh in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case. Singh was the director of Broway Group Ltd, which was the alleged beneficiary of "fraudulent" foreign outward remittances amounting to USD 2,880,210 (approximately Rs 20.75 crore), originating from Indian shell entities. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Senior Living Homes in Dalaon May Surprise You Senior Living | Search Ads Undo These transactions were made under the guise of import goods, without any actual corresponding business activity, the ED alleged. " Custodial interrogation may be warranted to ascertain the applicant's role in facilitating or benefiting from the alleged money laundering operation. Premature grant of bail would impede investigation and compromise the statutory objectives of the PMLA," the order read. Live Events The court on July 1 further noted that Singh's conduct, marked by sustained non-cooperation despite issuance of repeated notices, weighed heavily against the grant of pre-arrest protection. "His non-appearance in response to summons and evasion of investigation reflect a lack of bona fides and do not inspire confidence in his willingness to cooperate with the authorities... Notably, there is no denial on the applicant's part regarding the receipt of summons, yet he consistently failed to appear and evaded the process of law on untenable pretexts," the judge added. Criminal proceedings against the accused's company, the court said, were still at an initial stage.
