Delhi High Court
Aayub vs State Nct Of Delhi on 19 July, 2023
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 726/2022, CRL.M.As. 22101-02/2022
AAYUB ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shivam Singh, Mr. R. K. Singh
and Mr. Rana Prashant, Advs.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Hemant Mehla, APP for the state
with SI Rajesh Chauhan,with R-2
Mr. Avadh Kaushik, Ms. Saloni
Mahajan, Advs. for respondents
Mr. Sulaiman Mohd, Khan, Mrs.
Taiba Khan, Mr. Bhanu Malhotra,
Mr. Akash Bhushan and Mr.
Gopeshwar Singh Chandel, Advs. for
revisionist
% Date of Decision: 19th July, 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petitioner has been filed challenging the order dated
19.04.2022 passed by the learned Principal Distt. & Sessions Judge (East)
KKD Courts, Delhi.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:24.07.2023
16:31:31
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the same day i.e.
on 19.04.2022 the following order was passed:
"SC No. 396/22
State Vs. Aayub
19.04.2022
Present:
Sh. Gaurav Pandey, Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the State. Accused
is present on bail with Counsel Sh. Bhanu Malhotra.
Arguments on charge heard.
Gone through the record and perused the file.
Perusal of the record shows that on 09.06.2015 at about 11.30 pm
near H. No. 8, Gali No.4, Aaram Park, Delhi, accused along with
his 2-3 associates (since not arrested) in furtherance of their
common intention, fired with country made pistol on Shahzad S/o
Sh. Shakir by using a country made pistol.
Moreover, the MLC of the victim Shahzad corroborates the fact
that he had sustained injury on his person.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, prima
facie case for charge for offences under Section 307/34 IPC & 27
Arms Act are made out against the accused. Consequently, the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:24.07.2023
16:31:31
charge for said offences are framed separately against the
accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Let the prosecution witnesses, including the doctors concerned, be
summoned for the next date of hearing.
Be put up for prosecution evidence on 22.07.2022.
(Deepak Jagotra)
Principal Distt. & Sessions Judge(East)
KKD Courts, Delhi/19.04.2022"
And thereafter, the charge under section 307/34 IPC and 27 Arms Act
was framed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the detailed
arguments were made, the learned judge did not record the arguments and
also did not give any reasoning for framing of the charge.
4. The perusal of the order clearly indicates that no reasons have been
given by the learned Trial Court Judge for framing of charge. It is a settled
proposition that at the stage of framing of charge, lengthy orders or giving
detailed reasons is not required but at the same time, framing of charge of a
serious offence as that under Section 307 IPC cannot be without any reason.
5. In the present case, the order is devoid of any reasons and thus cannot
be sustained in eyes of law. The matter is remanded back to the learned Trial
Court. Learned Trial Court is directed to hear the arguments of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:24.07.2023
16:31:31
prosecution and the defence on charge afresh and pass the order in
accordance with the law.
6. The order dated 19.04.2022 is set aside. This Court has not gone into
the merits of the case and the defence may raise all possible contentions
before the learned Trial Court.
7. In view of the above, the present petition along with pending
applications stands disposed of.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
JULY 19, 2023/Pallavi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:24.07.2023
16:31:31
