Delhi District Court
Surender Taneja vs State on 15 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI JAIN, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-02, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLCT01-008192-2026
Criminal Revision No. 345/2026
Surender Taneja Vs. State
IN THE MATTER OF :
Sh. Surender Taneja
S/o Late Sh. Devraj Taneja
R/o 224, Gali No.7, Padam
Nagar, Kishanganj, Delhi 110007
....Revisionist/Petitioner
Vs.
State
Through SHO
PS Sarai Rohilla
....Respondent
Date of Institution : 08.05.2026
Judgment Delivered on : 15.05.2026
JUDGMENT
Vide this order, this Court shall decide revision petition under Section 438 read with Section 440 of BNSS, 2023 moved on behalf of revisionist against the impugned order dated 04.05.2026 passed by Sh. Rangat Gheera, Ld. JMFC-04, District Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in FIR No. 847/2205 titled as "State Vs. Surender Taneja" whereby the application for cancellation of NBWs issued against the revisionist was dismissed.
CR No. 345/2026 Surender Taneja Vs. State Page No.1 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.05.15
16:32:17
+0530
1. It is averred that application of revisionist seeking cancellation of NBWs in FIR No. 847/2025 under Section 308(2) BNS, 2022 PS Sarai Rohilla was dismissed by the Trial Court vide impugned order dated 04.05.2026. It is further averred that impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law and on facts, having been passed without due appreciation of the genuine medical condition of the petitioner, facts and circumstance of the case and consistent efforts of the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. It is averred on behalf of the revisionist/complainant that he is a senior citizen and a patient of Bipolar Disorder since 2016. It is further averred that an FIR No. 847/2025, under Section 308(2) BNS, was registered against him at Police Station Sarai Rohilla and Non-Bailable Warrants were issued against the Petitioner on 09.02.2026 qua which an application for cancellation of NBW was filed, which was dismissed by the Trial Court primarily on the ground of alleged non-cooperation in joining the investigation as directed vide order dated 21.04.2026.
3. It is further submitted that the IO served a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS in the evening of 23.04.2026, directing the Petitioner to appear on 25.04.2026, the petitioner had already been admitted to the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS) on 23.04.2026 at 8:32 a.m. due to a severe medical episode related to his Bipolar Disorder.
CR No. 345/2026 Surender Taneja Vs. State Page No.2 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.05.15
16:32:22
+0530
4. It is further averred that this fact was duly intimated to the IO via email dated 25.04.2026 and despite his medical condition, the petitioner voluntarily got discharged from the hospital on 30.04.2026 to cooperate with the investigation. It is further averred that the IO was informed of his discharge on 02.05.2026 and the Petitioner, along with his counsel, personally visited the police station on 02.05.2026 and 03.05.2026 to join the investigation but the IO was unavailable.
5. It is further averred that the impugned order fails to consider these crucial facts, the petitioner's genuine medical condition and his demonstrable willingness to cooperate, thereby leading to a miscarriage of justice and feeling aggrieved by said order, present revision petition has been filed on following grounds:
GROUNDS a. It is averred that Trial Court has erred in law and on facts by misreading and misinterpreting the order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the Ld. Sessions Court. The Ld. Trial Court wrongly observed that the Petitioner had not joined the investigation during the pendency of the anticipatory bail application and, on that basis, justified the dismissal of the application for cancellation of NBWs.
However, the record clearly reflects that the Petitioner had in fact joined the investigation on 17.02.2026 and 19.02.2026, which is duly recorded and acknowledged in CR No. 345/2026 Surender Taneja Vs. State Page No.3 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.05.15
16:32:26
+0530
the order dated 26.02.2026 itself. The impugned finding is therefore factually incorrect and has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice.
b. It is averred that Trial Court erred gravely by not observing the order dated 26.02.2026 passed by Ld. Sessions Judge wherein it is specifically mentioned that voice sample of the petitioner has already been sent to FSL, Rohini. Hence, the investigation was already completed in this matter and all evidences were already collected by the IO. There is nothing left which is required to be recovered from the Petitioner.
c. It is averred that Trial Court erred gravely by failing to observe that the petitioner was admitted to the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS) Delhi Govt. Mental Hospital on 23.04.2026 at 8:32 a.m. which was prior to the service of the notice under Section 35(3) BNSS by the Investigating Officer in the evening of 23.04.2026. This fundamental factual error demonstrates a clear misappreciation of the circumstancesleading to the petitioner's non-appearance on the stipulated date. d. It is averred that the Trial Court overlooked the crucial fact that the petitioner's medical condition and hospitalization were duly intimated to the Investigating Officer via email dated 25.04.2026. This timely communication clearly negated any intent on the part of the Petitioner to evade the investigation. The failure to consider this intimation amounts to a grave error of law CR No. 345/2026 Surender Taneja Vs. State Page No.4 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.05.15
16:32:31
+0530
and fact, as it demonstrates the Petitioner's bona fide conduct. Even, the IO was requested to interrogate the petitioner in Mental Hospital itself but he bluntly refused to do same. It is further averred that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that despite the ill health of the petitioner, it was asked by the IO to get the petitioner discharged and further asked him to join the investigation. Therefore, the Petitioner, on request of the IO got discharged (Leave Against Medical Advice) from IHBAS, Delhi Govt. Mental Hospital on 30.04.2026 which is duly mentioned in the Discharge Slip itself, only in order to actively cooperate with the investigation. The petitioner, through his counsel, personally contacted the Investigating Officer and visited the police station on 02.05.2026 and 03.05.2026 to join the interrogation, as evidenced by annexed photographs. It was the Investigating Officer who was unavailable or busy on these occasions, not the Petitioner who was unwilling to cooperate. e. It is further averred that the petitioner has been a patient of Bipolar Disorder since 2016, and his hospitalization on 23.04.2026 was necessitated as advised by the Doctor of Delhi Govt. Mental Hospital in OPD. This medical condition constitutes a legitimate and compelling reason for his inability to appear before the Investigating Officer as directed. The non-joining of the interrogation was not deliberate but a direct consequence of his severemedical condition, which the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate CR No. 345/2026 Surender Taneja Vs. State Page No.5 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.05.15
16:32:36
+0530
failed to adequately consider.
f. It is averred that Trial Court failed to take into account the disproportionate and intimidating police action, wherein over 40 policemen, including the SHO of the police station, came to the petitioner's house with NBWs on 08.04.2026 which shows how a complainant who is an influential person/Govt. Land Grabber and Encroacher, misusing the Police authorities for satisfying his personal gains. It is further stated that such excessive force, treating the petitioner as if he were a hardened criminal or terrorist, is unwarranted for an offense under Section 308(2) BNS and strongly suggests connivance between the police and the complainant, aimed at harassing the Petitioner. This conduct by the police undermines the spirit of fair investigation and due process. Therefore, the present investigation may be transferred Independent Investigation Agency or some other police authority to negate the influence of complainant.
g. It is further averred that the impugned order is based on a complete misappreciation of the facts and circumstances presented by the Petitioner. The Trial Court failed to exercise judicial discretion judiciously and mechanically dismissed the application without considering the humanitarian aspects and the petitioner's constitutional right to a fair investigation, free from harassment. h. It is further averred that the impugned order is prima facie wrong as the Trial Court dismissed the application of the CR No. 345/2026 Surender Taneja Vs. State Page No.6 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.05.15
16:32:40
+0530
petitioner due to non-joining of the investigation during the pendency of Anticipatory Bail which is against the reply filed by the IO itself, wherein the IO specifically mentioned that on 17.02.2026 and 19.02.2026, the petitioner has joined the investigation and this fact has also been mentioned in the order dated 26.02.2026 passed by Ld. Session Judge.
i. It is further averred that Trial Court failed to consider the fundamental principle that personal liberty should not be curtailed without due process and valid reasons, especially when medical conditions are involved. The petitioner's medical records and the sequence of events clearly establish a compelling case for the cancellation of NBWs, which the Trial Court erroneously dismissed. j. It is further averred that Trial court did not consider that on 23.01.2026, attempt to murder has been committed upon the petitioner by the complainant's associates on which no F.I.R has been registered till today and because of which the petitioner was constrained to file an application U/s 156(3) Cr. PC before the concerned JMFC. k. It is further averred that Trial Court failed to consider medical documents of the IHBAS and GTB Hospital wherein he was admitted in the IHBAS, Delhi Govt. Mental Hospital by the doctors himself when he went to the hospital just for the purpose of taking medical advise in OPD.
l. It is further averred that the impugned order is arbitrary, CR No. 345/2026 Surender Taneja Vs. State Page No.7 of 13 Digitally signed SHILPI by SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.05.15 16:32:45 +0530 perverse and unsustainable in law, as it ignores the overwhelming evidence of the petitioner's medical incapacitation and his subsequent earnest efforts to comply with the investigation. It is further averred that the order, if allowed to stand, would result in a grave miscarriage of justice and further prejudice the petitioner, a senior citizen suffering from a serious mental health condition.
6. It is further submitted that the Petitioner herein has neither filed nor is any petition similar and/or identical to the present one is pending adjudication either in the Hon'ble High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India prior to the instant petition.
7. It is further averred that that there is no delay in filing of the present petition and the instant revision.
8. It is prayed that the impugned order dated 04.05.2026 be set aside and NBWs issued against the petitioner/accused may be cancelled.
9. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent has vehemently denied all the contention of revisionist and submitted that petition ought to be dismissed as the petitioner has failed to indicate any perversity, illegality, irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court on his application.
10. It is further averred that it is a settled tenet of law that in revisional jurisdictions, the Court would not interfere with the finding of facts and would not venture to re-appreciate the CR No. 345/2026 Surender Taneja Vs. State Page No.8 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.05.15
16:32:50
+0530
evidence based on which the Impugned Order has been passed.
The scope of the revisional jurisdiction is thus very limited. The Petition is bereft of any averment which would remotely justify the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The Petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is prayed that the revision petition filed by the revisionist be dismissed with cost.
11. I have heard the arguments and perused the record carefully.
12. Revisionist has filed the present revision petition against impugned order dated 04.05.2026 passed by Ld. Trial Court, whereby the application of revisionist seeking cancellation of NBWs was dismissed.
13. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for the revisionist that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate facts and circumstances of the case in hand and the settled law and passed the impugned order without dealing with facts and documentary evidence which are on record.
14. Before proceedings further, it is necessary to go through the impugned order dated 04.05.2026 passed by Ld. Trial court which is reproduced as under:-
"FIR No. 847/2025PS : Sarai Rohilla State Vs. Surender Taneja 04.05.2026 CR No. 345/2026 Surender Taneja Vs. State Page No.9 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.05.15
16:32:55
+0530
Present: Sh. Shashank Tyagi, Ld. APP for the State.
Son of the accused in person.
Sh. Ankur Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel for applicant / accused.
Ms. Manisha Panwar, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
IO in person.
It is submitted by the IO that the accused has not joined the investigation despite service of notice as per the directions of the court.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that the accused was admitted at IHBAS on 23.04.2026 and was discharged on 30.04.2026. Thereafter when the accused contacted the IO, he was informed that the IO had gone for a raid. He has placed on record photographs of the accused at the PS of date 02.05.2026 and 03.05.2026. Further, it is argued that the accused is willing to join the investigation.
At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that in terms of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jagjeet Singh & Ors Vs. Ashish Mishra @ Monu and Anr 2022 9 SCC 321, the complainant / victim has been given unbridled right to participate in the proceedings even at the investigation stage. Further, it is argued that the accused is deliberately not joining the investigation and had not done so even during the pendency of the anticipatory bail proceedings due to which the same was dismissed vide order dt. 26.02.2026 passed by the Ld. Sessions Court. Thereafter, the accused has not joined the investigation and is deliberately avoiding the process issued by the police. It is also argued by moving the present application, the accused is indirectly seeking the same relief of anticipatory bail which has been denied by the Ld. Sessions Court. Hence, it is prayed that the application be dismissed.
Submissions heard. Record perused.
It is observed that anticipatory bail of the accused was dismissed vide order dt. 26.02.2026. NBWs were issued against the accused on 09.02.2026. Thereafter, the accused produced disability certificate dt. 17.04.2026 to substantiate his claim that he is medically unfit to join the instigation. The present application was moved on 21.04.2026 seeking cancellation of NBWs. The court had granted ample opportunities to the accused to join the investigation and had CR No. 345/2026 Surender Taneja Vs. State Page No.10 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.05.15
16:33:00
+0530
directed the IO to file a report for today. It is observed that despite passage of almost 2 weeks from the previous date, the accused has deliberately not joined the investigation and got himself admitted at IHBAS to avoid the investigation. It is further observed that the accused is, by way of the present application, trying to circumvent the orders of the Ld. Sessions Court by dismissing the anticipatory bail application.
In view of the above, it appears that the accused is deliberately not joining the investigation.
Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed.
Copy of order be given dasti to the IO and the Ld. Counsel for the accused as per request.
-sd-
(Rangat Ghirra) JMFC-04/Central:
Delhi/04.05.2026"
15. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that it is observed by the Trial Court in the said order that accused has deliberately not joined the investigation and got himself admitted at IBHAS to avoid the investigation. However, on the contrary, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is always willing and ready to join the investigation and has made all possible efforts to show his bona fide despite the fact that he is a senior citizen suffering from Bipolar Disorder since 2016 as reflected from his mental disability certificate also. Record further reveals that petitioner has joined the investigation on 07.02.2026 and 19.02.2026 and his voice samples have already been sent to FSL, Rohini as reflected in order dated 26.02.2026 passed by Ld. Sessions Court. Perusal of the impugned order further reveals that it was observed by the Trial Court that the petitioner CR No. 345/2026 Surender Taneja Vs. State Page No.11 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.05.15
16:33:04
+0530
has deliberately not joined the investigation and got himself admitted to IHBAS to avoid the investigation. It is noted that notice under Section 35(3) BNSS for joining the investigation was served to the petitioner in the evening on 23.04.2026. However, petitioner had already been admitted to IHBAS in the morning time i.e. 08:32 a.m on 23.04.2026 because of his Bipolar Disorder. Furthermore, petitioner has also placed on record e-mail dated 25.04.2026 and 02.05.2026 indicating his willingness to join the investigation even in the hospital while he was admitted over there and also to join the investigation in the police station on 02.05.2026 after getting discharged from the hospital. Revisionist has also placed on record photographs showing his presence in the concerned police station for the purpose of joining the investigation on 02.05.2026 and 03.05.2026. It is noted that right to be heard is important for fair trial and is part of natural justice and fair play. Every person should be given ample opportunity to put forth his case/submissions and contentions. Therefore, in the interest of justice, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the documents placed on record, revision petition is hereby allowed, and impugned order dated 04.05.2026 is set aside with the directions for the Trial Court to hear and decide the application seeking cancellation of NBWs of revisionist afresh after considering and taking into account aforesaid facts and circumstances, medical condition of the revisionist herein, disability certificate of Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital reflecting 55% disability, e-mail dated 25.04.2026 and 02.05.2026, CR No. 345/2026 Surender Taneja Vs. State Page No.12 of 13 Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN SHILPI Date:
JAIN 2026.05.15
16:33:11
+0530
discharge summary of revisionist, order dated 26.02.2026 passed in anticipatory bail application of revisionist herein and photographs of revisionist pertaining to 02.05.2026 and 03.05.2026.
16. Nothing said herein shall tantamount to have effect on the merits of the case. Trial Court Record be sent back with copy of the order.
17. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
18. Copy of this order be given Dasti to the revisionist.
Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.05.15 16:33:16 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (Shilpi Jain) on 15.05.2026 Additional Sessions Judge-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CR No. 345/2026 Surender Taneja Vs. State Page No.13 of 13