Delhi District Court
State vs Bhagte on 30 October, 2025
STATE Vs. BHAGTE
IN THE COURT OF MS. PARUL SHARMA
JMFC-13, DWARKA COURT (SOUTH WEST), NEW DELHI
DLSW020277912022
STATE Vs. BHAGTE
DD No. 113A dt. 09.05.2022
P.S Chhawla
Case No. 969/2022
Date of commission of offence 09.05.2022
Name of the complainant HC Devender
Name of accused and address Bhagte S/o Sh. Balwant
Singh
R/o A-Block, Roshan
Vihar, Najafgarh, New
Delhi
Offence complained of or proved U/s 53/116 Delhi Police
Act
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final order Acquitted
Date when reserved for judgment 08.10.2025
Date of judgment 30.10.2005
Case No. 969/2022 Page no. 1/11
Digitally signed
by PARUL
SHARMA
PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.10.30
14:47:01
+0530
STATE Vs. BHAGTE
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS:
1. The present case pertains to prosecution of accused Bhagte (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') , pursuant to Kalandra filed qua him under Section 53/116 of Delhi Police Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to 'Act') subsequent to the investigation carried out in DD No. 113 A dt. 09.05.2022, P.S: Chhawla.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.05.2022, a secret information was received regarding the coming of accused Bhagte whose externment order (Delhi out) was passed by Addl. DCP Dwarka on 01.12.2020 operational/valid for two years. A raiding team was prepared pursuant to which accused was arrested. After investigation, the police filed the present Kalandra against the accused for commission of offence punishable u/s 53/116 of the Act.
3. Upon appearance, complete set of documents were supplied to the accused. Notice of accusation was stated to the accused and separate notice u/s 43/116 of the Act was framed upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
4. Two witnesses in total were examined by the prosecution in support of its case and reliance was made on the following documents:-
Case No. 969/2022 Page no. 2/11 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date: SHARMA 2025.10.30 14:47:09 +0530 STATE Vs. BHAGTE Arrest Memo Ex.PW1/A Personal search memo Ex.PW1/B Kalandra bearing DD No. 113A Ex. PW2/A DD Entry regarding secret Ex.PW2/B information Externment order Ex. A-1
5. PW-1 HC Inder Singh deposed that on 09.05.2022, he along with ASI Rajesh and HC Devender was on patrolling duty and left the PS at around 03:30 pm. One secret informer told HC Birender that the accused, against whom an externment order has been passed, can be found roaming in the nearby lane, if raided. Thereafter HC Devender informed Insp. Kamlesh for forming a raiding party. On the direction of Insp. Kamlesh a raiding party was formed consisting of him, HC Devender and ASI Rajesh. Thereafter they proceeded to the spot mentioned by the secret informer i.e. A- Block, Roshan Vihar, Najafgarh.
After reaching the spot, the secret informer pointed towards one person standing in the lane 50 metres away who was the accused. Thereafter, the said secret informer left the place and he alongwith HC Devender caught the accused and HC Devender interrogated him. Upon interrogation, he disclosed his name as Bhagte. HC Devender enquired about te records from DCP office with Insp Kamlesh and came to know that the said accused is Delhi out since 08.12.2020 vide Order no.
Case No. 969/2022 Digitally
Page no. 3/11
signed by
PARUL
PARUL SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.10.30
15:40:37
+0530
STATE Vs. BHAGTE
2211-2230-Ext. Cell/DWD, New Delhi dt. 01.12.2020 for two years. Accused was arrested and arrest memo was prepared being Ex. PW1/A. Personal search memo was prepared by the IO being Ex. PW1/B After medical examination, the accused was sent to AATS. Upon production before the court, accused was admitted to bail.
6. PW-1 was cross examined. He stated that they left the PS at around 3:30 pm and a DD entry was made at the time of said departure from PS. The information received from the secret informer was not reduced into writing and telephonic information was given to the PS. No such entry was also made. The place from which accused was apprehended was a narrow lane but it was not a public lane. At the time of arrest, accused's wife was present. No public person joined the investigation and no notice served upon any such public person. He further admitted that no document was signed by the wife of the accused.
7. PW-2 HC Devender deposed that on 09.05.2022, he received a secret information about the coming of the accused against whom an externment order was passed by Addl. DCP Dwarka on 01.12.2020. He further deposed on the same lines as PW-1 not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
8. Upon cross examination, he stated that a departure entry was made regarding search of the accused. He further stated that he requested 3-4 public persons to join the investigation but they Case No. 969/2022 Page no. 4/11 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.10.30
15:40:44
+0530
STATE Vs. BHAGTE
refused citing personal reasons. No notice was served upon any such person. Information about the arrest was given to the wife of the accused. No statement of the neighbour was recorded regarding the presence of the accused. An arrival entry was also prepared upon returning to AATS office, Dwarka.
9. Thereafter PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C:
10.Statement of the accused u/s 313 read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to him. The accused denied all the allegations levelled against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Further, he stated that he was lifted from Village Jagsi, Sonipat, Haryana by the police officials. Accused further opted not to lead any evidence in his defence, hence DE was closed.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
11.Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their testimony has remained unrebutted. It has been further argued that on the combined reading of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses, offence u/s 53/116 of the Act has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Case No. 969/2022 Page no. 5/11 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date: SHARMA 2025.10.30 15:40:51 +0530 STATE Vs. BHAGTE
12. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused and that the accused has been falsely implicated by the police officials. It has been further argued that the accused has been actually arrested from Haryana. Further, despite the place of arrest being a public lane, no public person joined the investigation and no notice was served upon any such person. Name of the wife accused has been mentioned in a different ink upon the arrest memo Ex. PW1/A. Further, no documents has been signed by her. There is no arrival entry placed on record. Due to lacunae and incoherency in the story of the prosecution, accused be given the benefit of doubt and is therefore entitled for an acquittal.
13. Submissions have been heard and considered. Records of the case have been duly perused.
APPLICABILITY OF LAW, APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS:
14. Accused is indicted herein for the offence under Section 53/116 of the Act. The said provision is reproduced as follows:
"53. Procedure on failure of person to leave the area and his entry therein after removal.--
If a person to whom a direction has been issued under section 46, section 47 or section 48 to remove himself from Delhi or any part thereof--
Case No. 969/2022 Page no. 6/11 Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.10.30 15:41:03 +0530 STATE Vs. BHAGTE
(a) fails to remove himself as directed; or
(b) having so removed himself enters Delhi or any part thereof within the period specified in the order, otherwise than with the permission in writing of the Commissioner of Police under section 54, the Commissioner of Police may cause him to be arrested and removed in police custody to such place outside Delhi or any part thereof as the Commissioner of Police may in each case specify."
"116. Penalty for entering without permission area from which a person is directed to remove himself or overstaying when permitted to return temporarily.--
Without prejudice to the power to arrest and remove a person in the circumstances, and in the manner provided in section 53, any person who--
(a) in contravention of a direction issued to him under section 46, section 47 or section 48 enters or returns without permission to Delhi, or any part thereof, as the case may be, from which he was directed to remove himself; or
(b) enters or returns to Delhi or any part thereof with permission granted under sub-section (1) of section 54, but fails, contrary to the provisions thereof, to remove himself outside such area at the expiry of the temporary period for which he was permitted to enter or return or on the earlier revocation of such permission, or having removed himself at Case No. 969/2022 Page no. 7/11 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.10.30 15:41:10 +0530 STATE Vs. BHAGTE the expiry of such temporary period or on revocation of the permission, enters or returns thereafter, without fresh permission, shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months."
15.Burden of proof u/s 101 Indian Evidence Act always lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Also, it is well settled that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles him to acquittal. Going by the said principle, case of the prosecution is suffering from multiple inconsistencies and incoherencies thereby rendering its version highly incredible. The said discrepancies are discussed hereinafter one by one.
16.Firstly, the arrest of the accused itself is doubtful. As per the arrest memo, the accused has been arrested from 'in the street A-Block, Roshan Vihar, Najafgarh, Delhi'. Admittedly, as per the prosecution's version, the accused was found standing in the lane. However, no public person was made a witness to the alleged arrest. It is highly doubtful that no public person could be found in the residential area from where the accused was arrested. Moreover, one police official who was a member of Case No. 969/2022 Page no. 8/11 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.10.30 15:41:18 +0530 STATE Vs. BHAGTE the raiding party has been made as a witness thereby rendering the arrest of the accused tainted. Further, no notice was served upon any such public person who refused to join the investigation. These facts are squarely covered by the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as, " Anoop Joshi Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC)" and "Roop Chand v. The State of Haryana, 1999 (1) C.L.R. 69".
17. This Court is conscious of the legal position that non-joining of independent witnesses cannot be the sole ground to discard or doubt the prosecution case, as has been held in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However, evidence in every case is to be sifted through in light of the varied facts and circumstances of each individual case. In the situation at hand, evidence of an independent witness would have rendered the much needed corroborative value to the arrest of the accused which the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts. Secondly, under column no. 9 of the arrest memo, wife of the accused has been stated to be informed about the arrest as per the mandate of the law. Name of the said person appears to have been written in a different ink and handwriting. No cogent explanation has been rendered by the prosecution for the said discrepancy. Therefore, version of the accused being arrested from Haryana and not from Delhi does appear to be credible.
Case No. 969/2022 Page no. 9/11 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date: SHARMA 2025.10.30 15:41:24 +0530 STATE Vs. BHAGTE
18.Thirdly, the information about the accused has been given by a secret informer upon which raiding party was formed upon direction of Insp. Kamlesh. No such information has been recorded in writing however merely telephonic information was given to the PS. The said omission in light of the given circumstances is glaring. No DD entry has been recorded in the PS when the said information was allegedly given telephonically by the police officials.
19.Fourthly, as per PW-2's version, an arrival entry was also prepared upon returning to AATS office, Dwarka. No such arrival entry has been made a part of the prosecution's record. Merely one departure entry being DD No. 09 dt. 09.05.2022 has been annexed recording the departure of HC Devender, ASI Rajesh and Ct. Inder Singh from PS. However, the said entry is unreliable as it is only a hand written entry on a plain piece of paper annexed as 'true copy'. It has not been exhibited at the first place and further not proved as per the applicable rules of evidence.
CONCLUSION
20.In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove any cogent and reliable piece of evidence to bring home guilt of the accused for offence u/s 53/116 of the Act. Further due to several lacunas in the prosecution story, benefit of doubt must be Case No. 969/2022 Page no. 10/11 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date:
SHARMA 2025.10.30
15:41:31
+0530
STATE Vs. BHAGTE
given to the accused, thus entitling him for acquittal in the present case.
21.Accordingly, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused for the offence u/s 53/116 of the Act and holds the accused not guilty of commission of the said offence. Accused Bhagte is thus, acquitted of the offence u/s 53/116 of the Act.
22.Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the accused.
Announced in the open court on 30.10.2025.
(Parul Sharma) JMFC-13/Dwarka Courts/ Delhi/30.10.2025 It is certified that this judgment contains 11 pages, all signed by the undersigned.
Case No. 969/2022 Page no. 11/11 Digitally signed by PARUL SHARMA PARUL Date: SHARMA 2025.10.30 15:41:37 +0530