Delhi District Court
State vs Salman Tyagi And Ors on 9 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. SAURABH KULSHRESHTHA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03: WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI.
CNR NO. DLWT01- 003143/2020
SC No. 235/2020
FIR No. 397/2019
PS: Hari Nagar
State Vs. Salman Tyagi and others
In the matter of:
State
(NCT of Delhi)
Versus
Suraj @ Kura @ Musa
S/o Shri Ramniwas
R/o House No. 99, Hastsal Village
Vikaspuri, Delhi. ........Accused
Date of Institution : 13.06.2025
Date of Reserving Judgment : Not reserved
Date of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025
Decision : Accused Suraj @ Kura @ Mura is
convicted and sentenced for the
offence u/s 174-A (Part I) IPC.
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Suraj @ Kura was charge-sheeted for the offences under sections 3 and 4 of the MCOC Act and section 174A of the IPC.
State v. Salman Tyagi and others Page No. 1 of 5 FIR No. 397/2019 P.S Hari Nagar (Judgment in respect of accused Suraj @ Kura @ Musa)
2. Vide order dated 19.11.2025 accused Suraj @ Kura was discharged for the offences under sections 3 and 4 of the MCOC Act. He has already furnished bail bond in terms of section 437-A Cr.P.C qua his discharge for the said offences.
3. In so far as the offence u/s 174A of the IPC is concerned, it is seen that, vide order dated 13.05.2024, my Ld. predecessor was pleased to hold that the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been duly and properly published against the accused Suraj @ Kura on 06.04.2024 and 08.04.2024. The accused was directed to appear before the Court on 13.05.2024. Notwithstanding such due publication, the said accused chose to absent himself from the proceedings of this Court, in consequence whereof he came to be declared a proclaimed offender. Be that as it may, under the provisions of Section 82(4) Cr.P.C., a person can be declared as a "proclaimed offender" only in respect of limited and specifically-enumerated offences set out therein; and it is manifest that the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, do not find place in that specified list. Accordingly, the case against accused Suraj @ Kura stood attenuated to the effect that only a proclamation in terms of section 82(1) of the Cr.P.C. was published against him and he failed to comply with the same and appear before the Court within the stipulated period. The necessary consequence is that the accused willfully disregarded the mandate of the said proclamation under Section 82(1) State v. Salman Tyagi and others Page No. 2 of 5 FIR No. 397/2019 P.S Hari Nagar (Judgment in respect of accused Suraj @ Kura @ Musa) Cr.P.C. and was apprehended later on and eventually arrested in this case on 24.03.2025. The breach of the said provision i.e. section 82(1) Cr.P.C. only constitutes an offence under section 174-A (Part I) IPC as opposed to an offence under section 174-A (Part II) IPC.
4. In view of the foregoing, vide order dated 19.11.2025 charge was ordered to be framed against accused Suraj @ Kura for the commission of the offence punishable under section 174-A (Part I) of the IPC.
5. Charge has been framed against accused Suraj @ Kura for the offence under section 174A (Part I) of the IPC, to which he has pleaded guilty.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, especially that the vide order dated 13.05.2024, my Ld. predecessor was pleased to hold that the proclamation under Section 82(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been duly and properly published against the accused Suraj @ Kura on 06.04.2024 and 08.04.2024; and the judicial record demonstrates that the accused failed to appear before the Court on 13.05.2024 or thereafter in accordance with the directions contained in the proclamation under Section 82(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he was subsequently arrested in this case on 24.03.2025; and further considering his plea of guilt, I am of the opinion that the charge against State v. Salman Tyagi and others Page No. 3 of 5 FIR No. 397/2019 P.S Hari Nagar (Judgment in respect of accused Suraj @ Kura @ Musa) him stands established and accordingly accused Suraj @ Kura is convicted for the offence under section 174A (Part I) of the IPC.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
7. Arguments on the point of quantum sentence have been heard.
8. Ld. Counsel for the convict has contended that the convict Suraj @ Kura was earlier involved in only one other case i.e. case FIR No. 364/2013 P.S Tilak Nagar and he was acquitted in the said case; and that in the present case, convict Suraj @ Kura has already been discharged for the substantive offences under sections 3 & 4 of the MCOC Act. Accordingly it has been prayed that the convict Suraj @ Kura may be sentenced to the period already undergone.
9. Coming to the issue of quantum of sentence it would be worthwhile to note the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled as Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P, AIR 2004 SC 5150, which are as under:
".......In criminal cases awarding of sentence is not a mere formality. Where the statute has given the court a choice of sentence with maximum and minimum limit presented then an element of discretion is vested with the court. This discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically. It will State v. Salman Tyagi and others Page No. 4 of 5 FIR No. 397/2019 P.S Hari Nagar (Judgment in respect of accused Suraj @ Kura @ Musa) have to be exercised taking into consideration the gravity of offence, the manner in which it is committed, the age, the sex of the accused, in other words the sentence to be awarded will have to be considered in the background of the fact of each case and the court while doing so should bear in mind the principle of proportionality. The sentence awarded should be neither excessively harsh nor ridiculously low...."
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case; especially the fact that the convict has already been discharged for the substantive offences under sections 3 & 4 of the MCOC Act and that he has remanded in custody from 24.03.2025 till 02.12.2025, convict Suraj @ Kura is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period already undergone (giving benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C.) for the commission of the offence punishable under section 174-A (Part I) of the IPC.
11. Ordered accordingly. Benefit of section 428 of Cr.P.C. is extended to the convict.
12. Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be supplied to the convict, free of cost.
Pronounced in the open court on the 09.12.2025).
(Dr. Saurabh Kulshreshtha) Additional Sessions Judge-03 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi State v. Salman Tyagi and others Page No. 5 of 5 FIR No. 397/2019 P.S Hari Nagar (Judgment in respect of accused Suraj @ Kura @ Musa)