Mohd Imran vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 27 February, 2025

Delhi High Court

Mohd Imran vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 27 February, 2025

Author: Swarana Kanta Sharma

Bench: Swarana Kanta Sharma

                          $~77
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          %                                         Date of decision: 27.02.2025
                          +      CRL.M.C. 1278/2025
                                 MOHD IMRAN                                         .....Petitioner
                                                    Through:       Mr. R. H. A. Sikander, Mr.
                                                                   Jatin Bhatt, Mr. Sikander Raza
                                                                   and Mr. Jamil Ahmad Khan,
                                                                   Advs.
                                                    Versus

                                 STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                     .....Respondent
                                                    Through:       Mr. Ashish Dutta, SPP for
                                                                   State.
                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
                                                       JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 5704/2025 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 1278/2025

3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking setting
aside of the order dated 24.01.2025 [hereafter „the impugned order‟]
passed in Sessions Case No. 119/2020 by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-03, North-East District, Delhi [hereafter „the Trial
Court‟] vide which the cross-examination of PW-9 i.e. Head
Constable Shashikant has been closed. It is prayed that the learned

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 1278/2025 Page 1 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:06.03.2025
17:13:42
Trial Court be directed to recall the said witness and the petitioner be
provided with an opportunity to cross-examine him.

4. Issue notice. Mr. Ashish Dutta, the learned SPP accepts notice
on behalf of the State.

5. The present case pertains to an FIR No. 60/2020, registered at
Police Station Dayalpur, Delhi. The allegations against the accused
persons in this case are that on 24.02.2020, at about 1 PM, a riotous
mob had attacked a police team at Chand Bagh, Peer Dargah, North
East Delhi. In the said incident, one DCP and one ACP had been
severely injured. Several other police officials had also received
injuries, and a head constable namely Ratan Lal had been killed by
the rioters, who had sustained gun-shot injury. The present petitioner
was, allegedly, a part of the said mob. Charges against the present
petitioner were framed for offences under Sections
148/186/302/307/308/323/325/332/333/353/395/427/435 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter „IPC‟] and under Section 4 of The
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 read with Section
149 of IPC; and under Section 188 of IPC.

6. By way of the impugned order dated 24.01.2025, the learned
Trial Court was pleased to close the cross-examination of PW-9 HC
Shashikant. The learned Trial Court noted that he had cross-examined
on the said date by all defence counsels, except by Sh. Nadeem and
Mohd. Hasan, advocates, who sought an adjournment on the ground
that their senior counsels, who have to cross-examine PW-9, were

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 1278/2025 Page 2 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:06.03.2025
17:13:42
busy in another court. The relevant portion of impugned order is set
out below:

” PW Mohd. Adil was present. He has been
examined as PW-8, cross examined and discharged.
PW HC Shashikant was also present. He has been
examined as PW-9, cross examined by all the
defence counsels, except by Sh. Nadeem and Mohd.
Hasan, advocates. Sh. Nadeem, Mohd. Hasan and Sh.
Jatin Bhat, advocates refused to put any question to
PW-9 on the grounds that their senior counsels
wanted to cross examine this witness and they sought
adjournment, stating that senior counsels were busy
in other court. In this case on 09.12.2024, this court
had observed and directed for day to day trial from
15.01.2025 onwards, on the grounds of huge list of
witnesses. There are around 270 witnesses cited in
this case. The court had already informed all the
accused persons that it was their responsibility to
come prepared with their respective counsels of their
choice on every date of hearing. Thereafter, keeping
in view the request made by defence counsels, time
of 2 p.m. for every date was fixed, so that counsels
could manage their other cases. It shall not possible
to conduct desired speedy trial in the case unless
defence counsels also act professionally.

Ld. counsels are duty bound to make
respective arrangements for the purpose of this case
as well. In the back drop of such situation, aforesaid
request for adjournment of the case was found to be3
made without any bonafide reason and, therefore,
such request was declined. Opportunity to cross
examine PW-9 was accordingly closed.”

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that
the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in closing the

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 1278/2025 Page 3 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:06.03.2025
17:13:42
cross-examination of PW-9, thereby violating the petitioner‟s right to
a fair trial. It is argued that PW-9, a police witness, had never
identified the petitioner or attributed any role to him during the
investigation or in the chargesheet. However, during his deposition in
the court on 24.01.2205, he unexpectedly identified the petitioner for
the first time, which amounted to a significant and unfair surprise for
the defense counsels. It is further contended that given the sudden
shift in the testimony of PW-9, it was not possible for the petitioner‟s
counsels to conduct an effective cross-examination immediately.
Therefore, the petitioner‟s counsels had sought a short adjournment
to allow their senior counsels to cross-examine the witness, as the
unexpected nature of his identification had serious implications for
the petitioner. However, the learned Trial Court has erroneously
refused the adjournment and closed the cross-examination, and has
thus deprived the petitioner of an opportunity to challenge the
material improvements made by PW-9 in his testimony. The learned
counsel for the petitioner emphasizes that PW-9‟s statement in court
was significantly different from his earlier recorded statements, as he
had not identified the petitioner at any stage during the nearly five
years of investigation. Therefore, it is prayed that in the interest of
justice, the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to recall PW-9
for cross-examination.

8. On the other hand, the learned SPP for the State argues that an
adjournment could not have been granted by the learned Trial Court

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 1278/2025 Page 4 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:06.03.2025
17:13:42
for cross-examination of the witness, PW-9, since there is a very
large number of prosecution witnesses before the Court in the present
case, and trial in the matter would get delayed. It is further contended
that non-availability of a senior lawyer on behalf of an accused
person is no ground for seeking an adjournment. Therefore, it is
prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

9. This Court has heard arguments addressed by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the
State, and has perused the material placed on record.

10. In the present case, this Court notes that the testimony of PW-9
was recorded before the learned Trial Court on 24.01.2025. On the
said day, the counsels for all accused persons were present, including
the present petitioner. However, it transpired during the examination-
in-chief of the PW-9, that the said witness identified the present
petitioner as one of the persons who was involved in damaging and
setting ablaze his official car. This Court‟s attention has been drawn
to the fact that in his statement recorded on 01.06.2020 under Section
of 161 of Cr.P.C. in relation to the alleged incident, PW-9 had
nowhere mentioned about the presence of petitioner; and yet in the
course of his examination-in-chief on 24.01.2025, i.e., almost 05
years later, PW-9 identified the petitioner in court. Clearly, this
development would have been an unexpected and significant setback
for the petitioner. Even if the senior counsel had been present before
the trial court that day, it is likely that he or she would have required

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 1278/2025 Page 5 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:06.03.2025
17:13:42
time to discuss the same with the petitioner before conducting a
thorough cross-examination. This would have been particularly
necessary to properly confront the witness with his previous
statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

11. While it is true that unnecessary adjournments should not be
granted by a trial court, particularly during the deposition of
witnesses, the fundamental objective however of any trial court is to
ensure a fair trial. The purpose of expeditious trial proceedings is to
uphold justice, but not to compromise the accused‟s right to a proper
defense. Thus, denying a reasonable opportunity for cross-
examination, especially on a crucial issue such as the one in the
present case, will not serve the ends of justice. As also observed by
the Coordinate Bench, in order dated 13.02.2025 passed in
W.P.(CRL) 486/2025 i.e. petition filed by co-accused Mohd. Danish
on similar grounds seeking similar relief, when there is a genuine
reason, granting a short adjournment of a day or two for effective
cross-examination cannot be considered improper. The Coordinate
Bench had also observed as under:

“While this Court does not fault the learned Trial
Court for attempting to proceed with the trial
expeditiously, in the opinion of this Court, denying to
the petitioner the right to cross-examine PW-9 on an
issue which is critical to the petitioner‟s defence –
namely to his very presence and identity at the time
of the occurrence – appears to have been a
disproportionate sense of expedition. Nothing
prevented the learned Trial Court from rolling-over

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 1278/2025 Page 6 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:06.03.2025
17:13:42
the cross-examination of PW-9 to the next date or to
an early date thereafter, so as to afford to the
petitioner a fair opportunity to cross-examine that
witness; and to also obviate any subsequent challenge
that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to
cross-examine the witness.

This Court is of the view that adjourning the matter
to the next day or to any day soon thereafter, would
have been the balanced and appropriate course of
action. Speedy trial is in fact more in the interest of
an accused who claims innocence; but expedition in
trial cannot be at the cost of fairness of trial, since
that would be against all canons of justice.”

12. In view thereof, this Court is inclined to allow the present
petition. The impugned order dated 24.01.2025 is set aside, to the
extent it closes the opportunity of the petitioner to cross-examine
PW-9 HC Shashikant. It is directed that the petitioner shall have a
limited and time-bound opportunity to cross-examine PW-9 HC
Shashikant on such date and time as may be fixed by the learned
Trial Court, at its earliest convenience. It is also made clear that only
one opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner for cross-examining
PW-9 HC Shashikant, and no adjournment shall be granted to either
side by the learned Trial Court.

13. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

14. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
FEBRUARY 27, 2025/A

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 1278/2025 Page 7 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:06.03.2025
17:13:42