Court No.

5
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
SANJAY KUMAR
Item No: 1
Diary No: 48177/2024
Case Title: HANIF ANSARI vs. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
Sections Involved: Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(CrPC): Deals with default bail when a chargesheet is not filed within the
stipulated time.
Sections 21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(NDPS Act): Deal with offenses related to the possession, sale, or consumption
of illegal drugs.
Section 37 of the NDPS Act: Bars bail for offenses involving commercial
quantities of certain drugs.
Brief Facts: The applicant, Hanif Ansari, was arrested on April 7, 2022, for
allegedly possessing 2 kilograms of heroin (commercial quantity). The
chargesheet was filed on October 7, 2022, without the Forensic Science
Laboratory (FSL) report confirming the nature of the substance. The FSL report
was later filed on July 5, 2023, confirming the substance as heroin. The
applicant filed a bail application under Section 167(2) of CrPC, claiming that the
delay in filing the FSL report entitled him to default bail.
Court’s Observation: The court acknowledged previous conflicting judgments
on whether non-filing of the FSL report with the chargesheet triggers default
bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC.
 The court cited judgments holding that:
o Filing the FSL report with the chargesheet is not mandatory.
o Non-filing of the FSL report alone does not entitle the accused to
default bail.
o Commercial quantity of drugs under Section 37 of NDPS Act makes
bail stricter.
Held by the court: The court rejected the applicant's bail application, finding
no infirmity in the trial court's denial of bail. The court considered:
o The commercial quantity of heroin recovered.
o The subsequent filing of the FSL report confirming the substance
as heroin.
o The applicability of Section 37 of NDPS Act, making bail stricter.
Court No. 5
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
SANJAY KUMAR
Item No: 2
Diary No: 499/2024
Case Title: NANU @ UTKARSH TIWARI vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sections Involved: Sections 294, 323, 506, 34, 436 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC): Deal with offenses like obscenity, assault, criminal intimidation, criminal
conspiracy, and mischief by fire, respectively.
Sections 3(1)(n), 3(1)(/k), and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Deal with specific
offenses against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Brief Facts: Nanu Tiwari (appellant) was accused of abusing and assaulting
Banwari Adivashi and his family members based on their caste. The incident
allegedly involved setting fire to Banwari's shop and forcing him to wear a
garland of shoes. Tiwari was arrested and denied bail by the lower court and
Special Judge (Atrocities). He appealed, arguing that witnesses didn't support
the prosecution's case and co-accused were granted bail.
Court’s Observation: The court acknowledged the earlier dismissal of a similar
appeal based on the merits of the investigation. While certain witnesses' part
of the initial incident supported the prosecution, their statements regarding
later events differed. Statements from Banwari and his family, crucial to the
case, were yet to be recorded.
Held by the court: The court found no substantial change in circumstances to
reconsider the earlier denial of bail. The appellant's fourth appeal under the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was
dismissed.
Court No. 5
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
SANJAY KUMAR
Item No: 6
Diary No: 4230/2022
Case Title: GULZAR vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Sections Involved: Section 302 (Murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),Section
376 (Rape) of the IPC
Brief Facts: On 13.10.2002, a 7-year-old girl named Gulistan went missing from
her grandmother's house around 11 AM. Around 8 PM, an eyewitness named
Wahid informed Gulistan's uncle (the informant) that he had seen Gulistan
going towards a sugarcane field with Gulzar. The informant, along with others,
went to the sugarcane field near Shamim's garden and found Gulistan's dead
body with a leash tied around her neck and her salwar (trousers) open. An FIR
was registered against Gulzar for rape and murder. During the investigation,
Gulzar's clothes were seized, and forensic reports confirmed the presence of
semen stains and spermatozoa on them. Gulzar was medically examined, and
he had injuries consistent with having sexual intercourse.
Court’s Observation: The court observed that the prosecution had established
a complete chain of circumstances proving Gulzar's guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. The court relied on the eyewitness account of Wahid, the recovery of
Gulistan's body, the forensic evidence, and the injuries found on Gulzar's
person to conclude that he had committed rape and murder. The court found
the testimony of the witnesses, including the confession made by Gulzar to one
of the witnesses, to be reliable and consistent with the prosecution's case. The
court noted that the injuries found on Gulzar were not explained, and the
prosecution had established their correspondence with the injuries on
Gulistan's body.
Held by the court: The High Court dismissed Gulzar's appeal and upheld the
trial court's judgment of conviction and sentence. The trial court's order of life
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 under Section 302 (Murder) of the IPC
and 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000 under Section
376 (Rape) of the IPC was confirmed. The court observed that the sentence
was appropriate, considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances
involved in the case.
Court No. 5
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
SANJAY KUMAR
Item No: 7
Diary No: 14141/2022
Case Title: GAURI RISHI vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Sections Involved: Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Attempt to
commit culpable homicide
Brief Facts: In October 2013, Gaurav Rishi was admitted to a hospital with head
injuries, allegedly after falling from the 6th floor of a hotel. An FIR was
registered under Section 308 of the IPC. The victim was initially unfit for a
statement. The investigation has been ongoing since 2013, with a charge sheet
filed in 2015 and an application for further investigation filed later. The
petitioner filed a writ petition alleging that the investigation was being
improperly conducted and delayed.
Court’s Observation: The court noted that the investigation had been ongoing
for a long time. The court directed the police to conclude the investigation
within six weeks and file a supplementary report. The court clarified that the
petitioner could challenge the police report through appropriate legal means.
Held by the court: The writ petition was disposed of. The court directed the
police to conclude the investigation and file a supplementary report within six
weeks. Further proceedings in the trial court were to be held only after the
supplementary report was filed.