Interim Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: FIR No.: 13/2026
Page No. 1 of 6
State Vs. Ali Hussain @ Sonu @ Pichha
CNR No.: DLCT01-010694-2026
SC No.: 685/2026
FIR No.: 13/2026
Under Sections: 309(4)/309(6)/311/317(2)/95/3(5) BNS
P.S.: Sarai Rohilla Railway Station.
05.08.2026
Present: Mr. Gyan Chandra Soni, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Mr. Pankaj Kumar and Ms. Neha Sharma, Ld.
Counsel for the accused, namely, Ali Hussain @ Sonu
@ Pichha.
Accused Ali Hussain @ Sonu @ Pichha has been
produced from judicial custody.
ORDER ON CHARGE
1. The arguments of Ld. Addl. PP for the State and that
of Ld. Counsel for the accused, namely, Ali Hussain @ Sonu @
Pichha (
hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’) have been heard
as well as record(s)/material placed on record, thoroughly perused.
2. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that on
13.03.2026, on receipt of PCR Call
vide DD No. 5A regarding an
incident of robbery, while brandishing weapon/
chaku, the
concerned police officials proceeded for Rampura
fatak,
Keshavpuram, where it was determined that the
victim/complainant had already left the spot. Consequently, the
concerned police official(s) returned in the police station, where
the complainant, Kishan Kumar (
hereinafter referred to as the
‘complainant’) was found present. Thereafter, at the request of the
complainant, he was taken to Jeewan Mala Hospital, where the
complainant was got medically examined against MLC No.
46/2026, where it was
inter alia noted that the complainant has
sustained,
“...fall on back when someone pulled patient from
behind using bag on shoulder on train Patalkot SF
-- 1 of 6 --
FIR No.: 13/2026
Page No. 2 of 6
Express(20423)…” and the nature of injuries were determined to
be under observation at that point of time. Subsequently, statement
of the complainant was recorded wherein the complainant
inter
alia avowed that on 13.03.2026, he was proceeding from his
village in Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh to Delhi in Patalkot
Express. Further, as per the complainant, at around 04:30 a.m.,
when the train was proceeding ahead of Rampura Underpass,
Keshav Puram, two unknown persons entered the said train. As
per the complainant, the said two persons, returned towards him
from inside the coach and started pulling the handle of the bag,
which he/the complainant was carrying on his shoulder at that
point in time. Consequently, the complainant fell from the train
and sustained injuries on his hand, stomach and legs.
Correspondingly, as per the complainant, the said boys grabbed
his
pithu bag and fled from the spot, containing his clothes, brown
color purse, ATM cards, ID cards (Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Voter
Card) and other documents, like RC of bike, car RC, etc.
Thereafter, as per the complainant, when he ran towards the train,
he noticed that the other associates of the said perpetrators were
following him, and they grabbed him. As per the complainant, one
of the said persons grabbed hold of his collar, while the other
shoved him on the ground by pulling his hand and in the
meanwhile, the third person, who was carrying a
chaku took out a
sum of Rs. 40,000/- from his possession. Further, as per the
complainant, he thereafter, made a call to the police station and
proceeded for Shakurbasti and thereafter, reached at the police
station for registration of his complaint. Markedly, under said facts
and circumstances, the instant FIR came to be registered, and
investigation ensued. Relevantly, during the course of the
investigation, CCL ‘D’ and the accused were apprehended.
-- 2 of 6 --
FIR No.: 13/2026
Page No. 3 of 6
Relevantly, during the course of the TIP proceedings of the
accused on 09.04.2026, the complainant failed to identify him as
one of the perpetrators of the offence. Nevertheless, as per the IO,
in his subsequent statement under Section 180 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (
hereinafter referred to as
‘BNSS’), the complainant identified the accused as one of the
offenders in the police station. Correspondingly, as per the
concerned IO, from the possession/ at the behest of the accused,
the complainant’s robbed Aadhar card and voter’s ID card as well
as a sum of Rs. 700/- (Rupees Seven Hundred only) being a part
of the robbed amount were recovered.
3. At the outset, this Court deems it pertinent to
observe that it is a settled law1 that at the stage of framing of
charges, neither can the truth, veracity and effect of the
prosecution case be meticulously2 judged, nor can any weight to
be attached to the probable defence of the accused. On the
contrary, at such a stage, only the sufficiency of ground for
proceeding against the accused, on a general consideration of
materials placed before the Court by the investigating police
officer is relevant. In fact3, the probative value of the material on
record cannot be gone into, and the material placed on record by
the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. Needless
to mention that the superior courts4 have persistently deprecated
the practice of holding a mini trial at the time of framing of charge.
Relevant to further note that it is settled law5, at the stage of
framing of charge, only the police report is required to be
1
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018.
2
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460.
3
Soma Chakravarty v. State, (2007) 5 SCC 403.
4
Indu Jain v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 341.
5
State Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad & Anr. v. P. Suryaprakasam, (1999) SCC (Crl.) 373 and
State of Orissa v.
Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 (1) SCC 568.
-- 3 of 6 --
FIR No.: 13/2026
Page No. 4 of 6
considered and the defence of the accused6 cannot be looked into.
Further, though, sifting of evidence is permissible7, however,
scanning of evidence in detail is not. Concomitantly8, even the
inconsistency in the material produced by the prosecution or
defect9 in investigation, cannot be looked into for discharge of an
accused, in the absence of full-fledged trial. Needless to further
accentuate10 that at the stage of charge, court is not even required
to record detailed reasons for framing charge11, rather, a very
strong suspicion founded upon materials placed before the Court,
which leads it to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of
factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the
framing of charges. In fact, it is only when no case is made out
even after presuming entire prosecution evidence12, can an accused
be discharged. Needless to accentuate13,
“at the stage of framing
of charge, the sufficiency of materials for the purpose of
conviction is not the requirement and a prayer for discharge can be
allowed only if the court finds that the materials are wholly
insufficient for the purpose of trial.”
4. Ergo, being wary of the aforesaid principles, in light
of the arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for the accused as well
as that by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, this Court outrightly
observes that the from the facts and circumstances of the case,
material and the documents placed on record, including the
contents of chargesheet, seizure/recovery memo(s), records of TIP
6
State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294.
7
State of Maharashta v. Priya Sharan Maharaj & Ors., (1997) 4 SCC 393.
8
Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat v. State of U.P., (2013) 11 SCC 476.
9
State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police v. N. Suresh Ranjan & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 709.
10
Bhawna Bai v. Dhanshyam & Ors., (2020) 2 SCC 217.
11
Supdt. and Remembrance of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, AIR 1980 SC 52 and
Sajjan Kumar v.
CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368.
12
Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf, (2023) 7 SCC 633.
13
Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 424.
-- 4 of 6 --
FIR No.: 13/2026
Page No. 5 of 6
proceedings, statements of the witnesses as well as other material
placed on record,
prima facie case under Sections 317(2)14 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (
hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’)
stands established against the accused, namely, Ali Hussain @
Sonu @ Pichha. Further, from the perusal of case record, it is
revealed that there is strong suspicion and sufficient
material/ground(s) to proceed against the said accused, besides
there are witness(es) who can depose against him. In so far, as the
contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the accused regarding the
alleged defect in investigation is concerned, same do not find
favour with this court in view of the settled judicial precedents15
that mere defect in investigation cannot be a ground for discharge.
In so far as the contentions of Ld. Counsel for the accused
pertaining to accused’s false implication or that of recovery being
planted or that of accused being innocent are concerned, same, in
the considered opinion of this Court, are more in a nature of
accused’s defence, which cannot be considered by this Court at the
present stage. Nevertheless, it is seen from the reports that no
sufficient grounds, prima facie case or reasonable suspicion exits
for proceeding further against the accused Ali Hussain @ Sonu for
the offences Under Section 309(4), 309(6), 311, 95 BNS exists at
this stage. Needless to reiterate, charges cannot be framed on the
disclosure statement of the co-accused/confession of the accused.
5. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, charge(s)
under Sections 317(2) BNS be framed against accused Ali Hussain
@ Sonu @ Pichha.
6. List for framing of said charges and further
proceedings/arguments on pending bail application of accused Ali
14
Pari materia to Section 411 IPC.
15
State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police v. N. Suresh Ranjan & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 709.
-- 5 of 6 --
FIR No.: 13/2026
Page No. 6 of 6
Hussain @ Sonu @ Picha before the concerned court on
08.08.2026.
(Abhishek Goyal)
ASJ (FTC)-01, Central District16,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
05.08.2026
16 Present order is being passed by the undersigned, post transfer from the erstwhile posting as ASJ-03, Central, THC
vide
order bearing no.;
32/D-3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2026, dated 01.08.2026 and pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi.
-- 6 of 6 --