Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 25
Cr. Case 3209/2025
STATE Vs. SURAJ
FIR No. 4/2025
PS (Crime Branch-Central Delhi)
15.12.2025
Present. Sh. Amit Yadav, Ld. APP for the State.
A1 Suraj (7496870192), A2 Jitesh @ Jeetu
(7056430937), A3 Anil Rathi (8168258521) , A4 Sachin
@ Nitin @ Mota (9999281310) , A5 Sunil @ Sonu
(9266417631) and A6 Dishant Sharma @ Golu
(9990003703)are present in person.
A7 Pramod @ Modi produced from jail no. 2 Tihar Jail
via VC.
Sh. Simod Kumar Bansal, Ld. Counsel for A6 via VC.
Ms. Meenakshi, Ld. LAC for A7.
Sh. Rajesh Kumar and Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Ld. Counsel
for A1 and A3.
Sh. Lakshay Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for A5 and A4.
None for A2.
Fresh vakalatnama filed on behalf of accused A4 and A5.
Same be taken on record.
Matter is at the stage of consideration on the point of
charge. Arguments on the point of charge heard. Written submissions
of the counsel for accused Suraj also perused.
The brief facts of the case are that on 03.01.2025, the
Crime Branch received information that some persons shall be
carrying illegal weapons/fire arms for supplying the same to Nandu
Gang. Thereafter, a special team was constituted to nab the said
persons allegedly ferrying the said weapons. At about 12:05-12:20
AM on the intervening night of 03.01.2025-04.01.2025, a grey colour
tiago car was apprehended near Swaroop Nagar T-point and three
-- 1 of 5 --
persons were found sitting in the said car. As per the information
received, the said persons would be carrying weapons for supply to
Nandu gang. The persons apprehended from the vehicle were Suraj,
Jitesh and Anil. On their immediate personal search, no illegal
weapons were found. However, on sustained interrogation, they
admitted that they were working for Nandu gang and they were going
to a flat in Burari to meet their associate Pramod @ Modi and his co
associates. These people also admitted that they were arranging
weapons illegaly for Nandu gang. The police team then took these
persons to the Lake View Apartments at Burari where accused Pramod
@ Modi, Nitin @ Mota and Sunil @ Sonu were found. Illegal
weapons were found from the possession of the above mentioned
Pramod, Nitin and Sonu. Also, at the pointing out by accused persons
namely Suraj, Jitesh and Anil, illegal weapons were also found from
one of the rooms in the said flat (from an almirah). On the same day,
accused Deshant had also come there late in the night and during his
search, a semi-automatic pistol was recovered from the clothes being
worn by him. Based on these searches and recoveries, the present FIR
came to be registered and the investigation proceeded accordingly.
Ld. Counsel for the accused Suraj has prayed for
discharge for accused on the ground that the recovery effected at his
instance was a false one and that he had been falsely implicated in the
present matter. It is further stated that accused Suraj had clean
antecedents and hence he ought to be discharged. The credibility of
the prosecution case has also been questioned on the ground that no
independent witnesses were made to join the investigated proceedings
at any point of time. It is further stated that the ultimate source of the
-- 2 of 5 --
illegal weapons was still unknown and hence, it was unjustified to
saddle the accused persons with criminal liability. Ld. Counsel for
accused has also relied some judgments, as cited in para 33 of his
written submissions.
The present matter is before this Court for consideration
on the question of charge against the Accused persons u/s 25/54/59
Arms Act, based on the final report (charge-sheet) filed by the
Investigating Agency.
The Prosecution submits that a strong prima facie case is
made out under Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act, supported by the
statements of witnesses and documentary evidence collected during
the investigation. The Defence, conversely, has vehemently argued for
the discharge of the Accused persons, tendering various explanations
to negate the allegations.
The examination conducted by a Court at the stage of
framing charge is narrow, well-defined, and fundamentally distinct
from the exhaustive exercise conducted during the final trial. The
settled law mandates that the Court must restrict its inquiry to
determining whether the materials placed before it disclose a prima
facie case against the Accused. The threshold for framing a charge is
not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, nor is it the conviction that the
Accused will ultimately be found guilty. It is sufficient if the Court
finds that: The materials presented raise a grave suspicion against the
accused, leading a reasonable person to the belief that the Accused has
possibly committed the offence. The Court is not required to
meticulously weigh the evidence or assess the likelihood of
conviction; that is the function reserved for the final trial. If two views
-- 3 of 5 --
are possible, and one suggests the commission of the crime, the Court
is justified in framing the charge. The exercise here is merely one of
‘sifting’ the evidence, not ‘weighing’ it. This Court must refrain from
embarking upon a ‘roving and fishing enquiry’ into the evidence. A
roving enquiry involves prematurely dissecting the evidence, testing
the veracity of the witnesses’ statements, or seeking out minute
inconsistencies. These are matters of defence that must be established
during the cross-examination at trial. The Court cannot assume the
role of the trial judge at this nascent stage.
The law is unequivocal regarding the consideration of
defence material at the stage of charge:
1. The Court’s consideration at the stage of charge framing or
discharge is primarily limited to the police report (charge-sheet) and
the documents forwarded along with it.
2. The Accused does not have a right at this stage to produce
documents or evidence to counteract the prosecution’s case. Accepting
such defence material would prematurely shift the burden of proof
onto the Accused and force the Court into the very roving enquiry it is
prohibited from conducting.
3. Any document or evidence the Accused wishes to rely upon to
prove their innocence remains open to them to introduce, prove, and
rely upon during the course of the trial as part of the defence evidence.
Upon careful perusal of the charge-sheet, the statements
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and the documentary evidence
forwarded by the Investigating Agency, this Court finds that the
materials disclose a strong prima facie case against the Accused
-- 4 of 5 --
persons for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections
25/54/59 Arms Act.
Charges are accordingly framed against the accused
persons A1 to A6.
Put up for formal framing of charge against A7 Pramod
@ Modi (who is in JC) as well as for PE on the NDOH i.e.
22.12.2025 at 12:30 PM.
NDOH: 22.12.2025
Purpose: Formal framing of charge against
A7/recording of PE.
(HARSHITA MISHRA)
CJM/(Central)/THC/Delhi
15.12.2025
-- 5 of 5 --