Order 20

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 55
Cr. Case 11995/2025
STATE Vs. SHIVAM
23/2025 (NSP Metro)
20.05.2026
Undersigned is working as Duty JMFC today.
Present: Ms. Tanya Uppal, Ld. APP for the State.
Accused Shivam produced from JC. (Jail No. 1, Tihar Jail)
Accused Sameer @ Chuha produced from Gurugram Jail
through VC.
Sh. Farooq Ahmad, Ld. counsel for accused Sameer.
Ms. Seema Pal, Ld. counsel for accused Shivam.
Sh. Gaurav Jeet Narwan with Ms. Aanchal Singh, Ld. counsel
for DMRC.
Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Law Officer, DMRC in person.
Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Security Officer in person.
Arguments on charge heard.
(1) During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for accused Shivam
prayed to discharge the accused stating that although the accused Shivam was
present on the spot, no CDR has been placed on record with respect to his
involvement, there is no evidence against Shivam with respect to attempt to
commit theft, there is no CCTV footage in proof of the alleged offence. Further,
Ld. counsel for accused Sameer @ Chuha prayed to discharge the accused on the
ground that accused has been arrested on the basis of disclosure statement of co-
accused Shivam and there is no incriminating evidence against accused Sameer.
(2) Per contra, Ld. APP for the State submitted that upon disclosure
statemetn of both the accused, case property has been recovered and therefore,
charge for offence U/s 303(2)/62/3(5) BNS and Section 78 Metro Rail (Operations
and Maintanance) Act, 2002 is made out. Further, ld. counsel appearing for DMRC
relied upon judgment passed in the case of Ghulam Hassan Beigh Vs. Mohammad
Maqbool Magrey and Ors. (2022) 12 SCC 657 and stated that at the stage of
framing of charge, the Court has power to sift and weigh the evidence for limited
-- 1 of 3 --
purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against accused has been
made out and where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion
against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court would be
justified in framing the charge.
(3) Heard. Perused.
(4) It is settled law that while considering the question of framing
charge, the court has undoubted power to sift and weigh the materials for the
limited purpose for finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the
accused has been made out. In exercising such power the court cannot act merely
as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, as held in the case of Union of
Indian v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4. It has been further held in the
case of Sajjan Kumar v. CBI (2010) 9 SCC 368 that where the materials placed
before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained, court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding
with the trial. Further it was held that there cannot be a roving inquiry into the pros
and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if the court was conducting a
trial. If on the basis of material on record, the court could form an opinion that the
accused might have committed the offence, it can frame the charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused has committed the offence. The probative value of the material on
record cannot be gone into at the time of framing of charge but the court must
apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that
the commission of offence by the accused was possible. If two views are possible
and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguish from grave suspicion,
the court will be empowered to discharge the accused and the court is not to see
whether the trial will end in conviction or acquitting.
-- 2 of 3 --
(5) In the case at hand, charge sheet has been filed for offence U/s
303(2)/62/3(5) BNS and Section 78 Metro Rail (Operations and Maintanance) Act,
2002 against accused Shivam and Sameer @ Chuha alleging that on 30.07.2025, at
metro pillar 94 pink line, Herbal Park, Punjabi Bagh, accused Shivam was caught
at the spot attempting to commit theft of metro line cable and from his possession,
one rope, one iron saw and five blades were recovered. He was accompanied with
two other persons who managed to get away. Thereafter, during investigation upon
disclosure statement of accused Shivam, accused Sameer @ Chuha was formally
arrested and supplementary chargesheet was filed. The contention of Ld. counsel
for accused that there is no incriminating evidence against Sameer except for
disclosure statement, does not sustain. Even disclosure statement is an
incriminating material. Further, the contention that there is no CCTV footage or
CDR also does not sustain in view of settled law as discussed hereinabove. It is a
matter of evidence and at this stage, the Court has to see whether from the material
already on record, a prima facie case is made out against the accused or not. From
the material annexed with the charge sheet, there is prima facie material on record
to suggest that both the accused attempted to commit theft of metro cable line. In
view thereof, both the accused are liable to be charged with commission of
offences U/s 303(2)/62/3(5) BNS and Section 78 Metro Rail (Operations and
Maintanance) Act, 2002.
Let production warrants be issued for appearance of accused
Sameer @ Chuha through concerned JS Gurugram for NDOH.
Be put up for framing of charge on 03.06.2026.
(AAKANKSHA)
JMFC-03/N/w Rohini Courts
New Delhi/20.05.2026
-- 3 of 3 --