(1.) On 1/7/2021 the following order had been passed by this court in this petition:-
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is Anil Kapoor and not Anil Kumar who is named in the FIR, and whose premises are stated to have been raided by the police, with various 'spurious brands' of cigarettes, as also charas, allegedly found there; and the petitioner has only been named in an alleged disclosure statement made by the aforesaid Anil Kumar, in police custody, which would not be admissible in evidence.
(3.) She further submits that the petitioner has been named by the aforesaid Anil Kumar who earlier had named one Munna @ Pradeep Jain even as per his own disclosure statement (Annexure P-4), with the petitioner being so named only because he had a dispute with Anil Kumar over the supply of biris of which the petitioner is a registered wholesaler.