Uttarakhand High Court
O.P. Saklani vs Cbi And Another on 18 July, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 79 of 2016
O.P. Saklani. .......Revisionist.
Versus
CBI and another. .......Respondents.
Present:
Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the CBI.
Mr. Aditya Singh and Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
With
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1510 of 2016
O.P. Saklani. .......Revisionist.
Versus
Addl. Session Judge
and another. .......Respondents.
Present:
Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the CBI.
And
Criminal Misc. Application No. 213 of 2016
O.P. Saklani. .......Revisionist.
Versus
CBI and another. .......Respondents.
Present:
Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the CBI.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the
victim O.P. Saklani against the order passed by 2nd Special Judge
(Anti Corruption), CBI, Dehradun dated 01.03.2016 in Sessions
Trial No. 36 of 2014 (State Vs. Basant Soni and others) arising out
of FIR No. RC 0072013S0005 for the offences punishable under
2
Section 302/34, 201, 323 IPC, Police Station – CBI – SPE,
Dehradun.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that revisionist / victim /
complainant is a practicing lawyer, whose wife was murdered on
16.10.2012 and thereafter, an FIR was lodged and investigation
was conducted by the local police and thereafter, on the
intervention of the High Court, the investigation was transferred
to CBI. Thereafter, the CBI registered the FIR bearing FIR No. RC
0072013S0005 and filed charge-sheeted on 08.11.2013 against five
persons namely Sunny Joshi (A1), Kaleem Khan (A2), Brijmohan
Sharma @ Billa (A3), Basant Soni (A4) and Vikas @ Vikki @
Mahendra Pal (A5). In this charge-sheet, there are 79 prosecution
witnesses, in which following were also made as prosecution
witnesses (i) Shamim Alam, (ii) Kalpana Alam (iii) Shahzadi
Alam and (iv) Chandra Shekhar. On the basis of the charge sheet,
charges were framed. Present revisionist being complainant –
victim moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before
Special Judge, Anti Corruption, CBI, Derhadun praying for
summoning of Shamim Alam and Constable Naveen Chandra. In
this application, Mr. Tej Prakash, Inspector, CBI, SPE, Dehradun
filed a detailed objection.
3. In paragraph 7 of the objection, it is contended that on re-
examination / interrogation of the accused persons of the case
namely Kaleem Khan, Basant Soni, Brijmohan @ Billa and Sunny
Joshi it reveals that they had visited the house of Smt. Pushpa
Saklani W/o Sh O.P Saklani with the intention to commit loot but
since they were over drunk and the murder was committed, they
ran away, out of fear without committing the loot.
4. Paragraph 8 and 10 of the objection are relevant, which are
being reproduced herein as under:
3
“8. That the scrutiny of CDRs of the suspect Sh Shamim
Alam and the accused persons revealed that there were 2
numbers with which either Shamim Alam or his family
members and any of the accused person had any
conversation. One such mobile no. was in the name of Shri
Amit Aggarwal, while the other was being used by Shri
Rajender Singh Dhillon, Ex- Counselor, but their
examination could not establish any link between Shamim
Alam and any of the accused persons of this case. The
mobile analysis of all the accused persons and suspected
persons has revealed that there was no communication
whatsoever between accused Kaleem, Vicky and Brijmohan
@ Billa with Shri Shamim Alam and his family members.
10. That Shri Sandeep Kumar Sharma, Scientific Officer
and Shri Vijay Lal, Constable working with mobile field
unit, forensic science laboratory, Dehradun were also
further examined, who stated that the two chance finger
prints found available in the blood stained kitchen knife
probably used as a weapon for murder were developed by
the team. These finger prints were very feeble and not very
clear and same could not have been photographed and as
such, the photograph of the chance prints, were not taken
by the forensic team. These two chance prints were
developed and lifted by the FSL team. The same were sent
to P.S Kotwali, Dehradun through Dak Runner Ct
Naveen, of P.S Kotwali, Dehradun on 19.10.2012.
However, these chance prints were not actually received by
the I.0. and became un-traceable. The averment made by the
revisionist that a report on the finger prints was handed
over to Constable Naveen Chandra by FSL, Dehradun is
not correct. The forensic team had only collected the chance
prints from the scene of crime, which were developed by the
4forensic team and these developed finger prints were
handed over to constable Naveen Chandra of P.S Kotwali
Dehradun by the FSL, Dehradun. Investigation has
revealed that the chance prints received by Constable
Naveen Chandra were lost in transit and could not be
located. The forensic experts, Constable Naveen Chandra
and others were examined during further investigation but
nothing has come on record which reveals that the loss of
the finger prints was intentional and there was criminal
intent in loss of the finger prints on the part of Constable
Naveen Chandra. This fact of loss of finger prints was
brought to the knowledge of Hon’ble Court and
departmental action against the erring officials/officers of
P.S Kotwali, Dehradun was recommended.”
5. It is further contended in the objection that on further
investigation nothing was found against Shamim Alam Khan. A
detailed rejoinder affidavit has been filed by revisionist to the
objection filed by the CBI wherein the revisionist reiterated that
there was strong motive of Shamim Alam Khan for commission
of crime since a complaint with regard to fake registration of
Shamim Alam Khan with the Bar Council was made and in that
case, he was tried by the trial court. It is also contended in the
rejoinder affidavit that objection submitted by the CBI are
immaterial and during examination in chief the complainant –
revisionist submitted documentary evidence in three list bearing
number A, B and C, which were duly exhibited.
6. The application moved by the revisionist for summoning
the Constable Naveen Chandra was rejected by the trial court on
08.07.2015, which was assailed before this Court in Criminal
Revision No. 207 of 2015 and order passed by the trial court was
set aside by the High Court on 16.01.2015 and the trial court was
5
directed to pass fresh order in the light of observations made by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Pal Vs. State
of Haryana (2014) 3 SCC 306. Thereafter, Special Judge, Anti
Corruption, CBI, Dehradun allowed the application and
summoned Constable Naveen Chandra 548 under Section 319
Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.
Subsequently, application moved by the revisionist for
summoning Shamim Alam Khan was rejected by order dated
01.03.2016, which is now challenged by way of instant revision.
7. Present revisionist has also filed Writ Petition (Criminal)
No. 1510 of 2016 in which the Coordinate Bench of this Court on
17.11.2016 passed an interim order that if an application for
adjournment is moved, the trial court shall consider the same
favourably for a period of 8 week. Subsequently, on 11.01.2017,
proceedings before the trial court was stayed which was
extended from time to time.
8. Present revisionist has also filed C 482 No. 213 of 2016
challenging the order dated 04.12.2015 and 11.02.2016 passed by
Special Judge, Anti Corruption, CBI, Dehradun wherein the
Application No. 119B moved by accused Sunny Joshi through his
counsel praying for permitting him to visit the site of occurrence
was allowed, though which was opposed by the revisionist by
submitting that application is not maintainable. The application
moved by Sunny Joshi was also opposed by CBI but without
taking into consideration the objection of the revisionist and CBI
the trial court allowed the application. Against the order passed
by the trial court, the revisionist approached this Court and the
Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 22.07.2016 stayed
the order passed by the trial court.
6
9. Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the revisionist argued
that the trial court exceeded in its jurisdiction while passing the
order on the application moved by the accused to visit site of
occurrence.
10. List this case on 22.07.2025 further arguments.
11. Interim order, if any, shall continue till the next date of
listing.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
18.07.2025
SKS