Delhi District Court
State vs Shahid Ali @ Mogli on 22 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH KUMAR, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-02, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Shahid Ali @ Mogli
DD No. 62A dated 17.09.2020
U/s 53 r/w 116 of Delhi Police Act
PS : Chanakyapuri
Date of Institution : 03.01.2020
Date of Judgment : 22.04.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 5141/2020 2. Name of the Complainant : HC Anil Kumar
3. Date of commission of offence : 17.09.2020
4. Name of accused : Shahid Ali @ Mogul, S/o Sh. Fazlu Rehman, R/o Jhuggi No. 628, Sanjay Camp, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi.
5. Offence charged : U/s 53 r/w 116 of Delhi Police Act
6. Plea of accused : Not Guilty
7. Final Order : CONVICTION State Vs. Shahid Ali @ Mogli DD No. 62A dated 17.09.2020, PS Chanakyapuri Judgment dated 23.04.2025 Page No. 1 of 9 BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. The accused namely Shahid Ali @ Mogli has been chargesheeted for committing offence punishable under Section 53 r/w 116 of the Delhi Police Act (hereinafter referred to as "DP Act").
2. It has been alleged by the prosecution that the accused Shahid Ali @ Mogli was externed from the territory of the NCT of Delhi by the order issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-I vide order no. 761-860/Ext-Addl. (1) New Delhi dated 13.06.2019 for the period of two years. He was directed to remove himself and not to enter the territory of the NCT of Delhi during the two year period effective from 13.06.2019. However, on 17.09.2020 at San Martin Marg within the jurisdiction of PS Chanakyapuri, the accused was found riding a bike bearing registration no. DL 8SCQ 4844 by HC Anil Kumar. He was apprehended by the police officials of PS Chanakyapuri and he could not provide any reasonable explanation behind his presence within the territory of NCT of Delhi during the externment period. Thereafter, the present kalandara was prepared for the offence punishable u/s 53 r/w 116 of the DP Act.
State Vs. Shahid Ali @ Mogli DD No. 62A dated 17.09.2020, PS Chanakyapuri Judgment dated 23.04.2025 Page No. 2 of 9
3. On receipt of kalandara, cognizance of offence was taken. Copy of the kalandara alongwith all annexures was supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. After giving an opportunity to State as well as accused for making submissions on notice, notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C was served upon the accused for the offence punishable u/s 53 r/w 116 of the DP Act on 31.08.2022 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution examined two witnesses to prove its case.
6. As PW1, Anil Kumar was examined by the prosecution. In his examination in chief, he deposed that on 17.09.2020 at about 11 AM he had received information through private source that the accused Shahid Ali @ Mogli who was a bad character of the area of PS Chanakyapuri was present in Bapu Dham, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. Therefore, he informed HC Sunil who was the beat officer of the said area and Ct. Sunil. Thereafter, he along with these police officers went to Bapu Dham, San Martin Marg opposite Asian Development Bank, Chanakyapuri where he saw the accused on a motorcycle bearing no. DL 8SCQ 4844 TVS Apache red colour. Thereafter, the accused was apprehended by the police officials. He asked as to why he was present in the State Vs. Shahid Ali @ Mogli DD No. 62A dated 17.09.2020, PS Chanakyapuri Judgment dated 23.04.2025 Page No. 3 of 9 area despite knowing that he was a bad character and was externed from Delhi for the period of two years w.e.f 03.06.2019. He did not give any satisfactory reply. PW1 correctly identified the accused in the Court. He was taken to the police station and the present kalandara was prepared u/s 53/116 of the Delhi Police Act. The kalandara is Ex. PW-1/C. The accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/D and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW-1/E.
7. PW1 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he did not make any video or take any photograph showing the location of any part of Delhi which could show the presence of the accused in Delhi. He also admitted that no footage was collected to show that the accused was seen in any footage which could show his presence in Delhi. He also admitted that he knew the accused prior to lodging of this matter as accused was bad character of Delhi. He further admitted that many other cases were pending in various Courts of Delhi and he had come to Delhi to attend the Court proceedings. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not violate any externment order or that he was falsely implicated in this case or that he was deposing falsely. State Vs. Shahid Ali @ Mogli DD No. 62A dated 17.09.2020, PS Chanakyapuri Judgment dated 23.04.2025 Page No. 4 of 9
8. PW2 HC Sunil was another witness examined by the prosecution. He was also with the PW1 when the accused was apprehended. In his examination in chief, he deposed that on 17.09.2020, he was on patrolling duty in the area of Bapu Dham Chanakyapuri and his duty hours were from 8 AM to 8 PM. During his duty hours, HC Anil came to him and informed him about the presence of the accused in his beat area. Thereafter, he along with HC Anil Kumar went to Bapu Dham at San Martin Marg, opposite Asian Development Bank, Chanakyapuri where they saw the accused on motorcycle. Thereafter, they apprehended him and asked him as to why he was present in the area despite knowing that he was bad character and was externed for two years from Delhi from 13.06.2019. The accused did not give any satisfactory reply. A cursory search was conducted of the accused and one knife was recovered from his possession. The said knife was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/A. The bike was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/B. Kalandara for the offence punishable u/s 53 r/w 116 of the DP Act was prepared Ex. PW-1/C. The accused was arrested and was personally searched. He was also medically examined.
9. PW2 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he did not State Vs. Shahid Ali @ Mogli DD No. 62A dated 17.09.2020, PS Chanakyapuri Judgment dated 23.04.2025 Page No. 5 of 9 make any video or take any photograph showing the location of any part of Delhi which could show the presence of the accused in Delhi. He also admitted that no footage was collected to show that the accused was seen in any footage which could show his presence in Delhi. He also admitted that he knew the accused prior to lodging of this matter as accused was bad character of Delhi. He further admitted that many other cases were pending in various Courts of Delhi and he had come to Delhi to attend the Court proceedings. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not violate any externment order or that he was falsely implicated in this case or that he was deposing falsely.
10. The accused also admitted the genuineness of DD No. 62A and externment order no. 761-86/Ext. Add. DCP (I), New Delhi District dated 13.06.2019 u/s 294 Cr.P.C, Ex. A-1 to A-2 respectively. Hence, formal proof of these documents was dispensed with.
11. After the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed at the request of Ld. APP for the State vide order dated 13.02.2025. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein he denied the incriminating materials against him. He further stated that he was State Vs. Shahid Ali @ Mogli DD No. 62A dated 17.09.2020, PS Chanakyapuri Judgment dated 23.04.2025 Page No. 6 of 9 falsely implicated in the p[resent case. He also stated that he was not aware about the externment order as the same was never communicated to him. He also stated that he was taken by the police officials from his house.
12. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
13. Ld. APP for the State submitted that the prosecution witnesses had completely supported the case of the prosecution. The accused was found in Delhi during the externment period. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused had submitted that no public witness was examined by the prosecution to prove the presence of the accused within the territory of Delhi. He was falsely implicated in the present case by the police officials due to his previous antecedent.
14. I have heard the submissions made and perused the materials available on record.
15. In order to prove the culpability of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 53 r/w 116 DP Act, the prosecution needs to prove that (i) that the extenrment order was passed against the accused u/s 47 of Delhi Police Act directing him to remove himself from Delhi for the period as specified in the order; and (ii) that the accused was found present in Delhi in violation of the State Vs. Shahid Ali @ Mogli DD No. 62A dated 17.09.2020, PS Chanakyapuri Judgment dated 23.04.2025 Page No. 7 of 9 said externment order.
16. In the present case, the accused has already admitted the genuineness of the externment order Ex. A-2 u/s 294 Cr.P.C. As per the said order, the accused was externed from the territory of Delhi for the period of two years w.e.f. 13.06.2009. He did not dispute the correctness of the same. However, the accused in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C had stated that he was not informed about the passing of externment order. It should be noted that this was bald statement made by the accused. Not even a single suggestion in this regard was put before the prosecution witnesses in their cross-examination. Thus, I find that the first ingredient of the offence has been properly established by the prosecution.
17. In order to prove the second ingredient of the offence regarding the presence of the accused within the territory of NCT of Delhi during the externment period, the prosecution has examined two police officials who have apprehended the accused. They had categorically stated that the accused was apprehended on 17.09.2020 near Bapu Dham, San Martin Marg. Both were duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
18. Although, it is true that the public witnesses were not joined by State Vs. Shahid Ali @ Mogli DD No. 62A dated 17.09.2020, PS Chanakyapuri Judgment dated 23.04.2025 Page No. 8 of 9 the police officials during the apprehension of the accused, their testimonies cannot be discarded away merely on this ground, however, their testimonies have to be scrutinised in more detail. In the present case, no material contradictions could be seen in their testimonies. In fact, the accused in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C did not dispute the fact that he was present in Delhi on 17.09.2020. In fact, he had stated that he was taken by the police officials from his house. Thus, I find that the prosecution has successfully proved the second ingredient of the offence also.
19. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and findings, I find that the prosecution has remained successful in proving the guilt of the accused Shahid Ali @ Mogli beyond reasonable doubts in the present case. Thus, the accused Shahid Ali @ Mogli is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 53 r/w 116 of the DP Act.
20. Let copy of this judgment be give to both the accused free of cost.
Pronounced in open court, on this day of 22nd April, 2025. This judgment consists of 09 signed pages.
Digitally signed (ANIMESH KUMAR) by ANIMESH JMFC-02/PHC/New Delhi ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 22.04.2025 2025.04.22 16:45:16 +0530 State Vs. Shahid Ali @ Mogli
DD No. 62A dated 17.09.2020, PS Chanakyapuri Judgment dated 23.04.2025 Page No. 9 of 9