CRL.M.C./6556/2026 of SAKIR ALI Vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DLEHI on 7 September 2026

O R D E R

% 07.09.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CRL.M.A. 27401/2026 (seeking exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 6556/2026

3. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), seeking setting aside of the order dated 08.08.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, North-East Delhi District, in Sessions Case No. 283 of 2021, titled “State v. Firoz Khan & Ors.”

4. The grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Investigating Officer of the case was being cross-examined by the other co- accused persons and, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner sought some time to peruse the cross-examination already recorded before commencing his own cross-examination.

5. Learned SPP, who appears on advance notice, strongly opposes the present petition. He submits that it is clear from the Trial Court record and the order-sheets that, before the Investigating Officer was to be cross-examined by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner was present in Court and was assisting the other counsel during the cross- examination on behalf of the other co-accused persons. This fact is clearly recorded in the order-sheets. It is further submitted that, for one reason or another, the accused persons are not permitting the learned Trial Court to proceed with the trial, which is already more than six years old.

6. This court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the matter on record.

7. It is evident from the order-sheets that learned counsel for the petitioner was present in Court during the cross-examination of PW-16 on behalf of the other co-accused persons. It is also correct that, ordinarily, a cross- examination of a witness is not supplied during the course of trial. Nevertheless, considering the nature of the witness, namely, the Investigating Officer of the case and the fact that the petitioner seeks only one further opportunity to exercise the right of cross-examination, this Court is of the view that the petitioner ought to be granted one final opportunity in the interest of a fair trial.

8. Accordingly, the order dated 08.08.2026, to the extent it concerns the petitioner, namely, Sakir Ali, is set aside. The learned Trial Court shall grant the petitioner one final opportunity to cross-examine PW-16, ASI Naushad Haider, on a date to be fixed by the learned Trial Court.

9. It is made clear that the cross-examination shall be conducted on one single day. No adjournment shall be sought or granted for any reason whatsoever. In case the petitioner or his counsel fails to avail of the opportunity on the date fixed, the right of the petitioner to further cross- examine PW-16 shall stand closed.

10. It is further made clear that, in case the witness is unable to appear before the learned Trial Court on account of any unforeseen or natural circumstance, the cross-examination already conducted shall be read into evidence.

11. It is further made clear that the present relief is subject to the petitioner depositing costs of Rs.25,000/- with the concerned District Legal Services Authority [North-East District Legal Services Authority] before the date fixed for cross-examination. In the event of failure to deposit the costs, the benefit of this order shall not be available to the petitioner.

12. The parties shall appear before the learned Trial Court on 11.09.2026.

13. The present order is confined to the petitioner, namely, Sakir Ali, and shall not enure to the benefit of any other accused persons.

14. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

15. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 7, 2026/JYH/P