Delhi High Court
Gopi Nisha Mallah vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 January, 2018
$~56 & 14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 30.01.2018
+ CRL.REV.P. 561/2017
GOPI NISHA MALLAH ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE (NCT OF DXELHI) ..... Respondent
+ BAIL APPLN. 152/2018
GOPI NISHA MALLAH ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh with Ms.
Adit Mittal and Mr. Nakul Pathania.
For the Respondents : Ms. Anita Abhraham, APP for State.
SI Pushpendra, PS Bara Hindu Rao.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
30.01.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CRL.REV.P. 561/2017
1. The petitioner impugns order dated 25.07.2017, whereby, the
BAIL APPLN. 152/2018
defence evidence was closed.
2. It is contended that 25.07.2017 was the first date fixed for
leading defence evidence. The petitioner was in custody and was
produced from judicial custody on the said date. However, till 2:37
pm (as noticed by the Court), his counsel did not appear. The Court
has noticed that no list of witnesses was filed and no witness was
produced by the accused.
3. Perusal of the order dated 25.07.2017 shows that after the Court
had closed the right to lead defence evidence, one Lal Chand had put
his appearance before the Court and had claimed to be a defence
witness.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has to produce three witnesses in his defence. He further submits that
since the petitioner was incarcerated on the date when the impugned
order was passed and his right was closed, he was not in a position to
contact his counsel and find out his whereabouts. Learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never taken any
adjournment either for cross-examining the prosecution witnesses or
for leading evidence.
5. Keeping in view of the facts of the case and the fact that the
petitioner was incarcerated on the date when the impugned order was
passed, and one witness did appear on behalf of the petitioner though
BAIL APPLN. 152/2018
belatedly, I am of the view that, in the interest of justice, one
opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to lead defence
evidence.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.07.2017 is set aside.
The petitioner is directed to file the list of witnesses within one week
from today with copy to the Public Prosecutor.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the defence
witnesses shall be present on the next date fixed before the Trial
Court.
8. It is stated that the matter is listed before the Trial Court on
26.02.2018 for awaiting the orders of this Court.
9. List before the Trial Court on 26.02.2018. On the said date, the
Trial Court shall endeavour to record the defence witnesses.
However, in case, it is not possible for the Trial Court to record the
evidence or conclude the evidence, the witnesses of the petitioner
shall be bound down for such other dates as may be convenient to the
Trial Court.
10. The Trial Court shall expedite the recording of the evidence and
conclude the proceedings expeditiously.
11. In case, the Trial Court record has been received, the same be
transmitted back forthwith. In case, the same has not been received,
BAIL APPLN. 152/2018
the same need not be requisitioned.
12. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
BAIL APPLN. 152/2018
In view of the orders passed in CRL.REV.P. 561/2017 directing
expeditious disposal of the trial court proceedings, learned counsel for
the petitioner does not wish to press the present bail application.
The present bail application is, accordingly, dismissed as not
pressed.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 30, 2018
st
BAIL APPLN. 152/2018
