Bhuvnesh Prakash Sharma vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi)

Sunil Gaur, J

Impugned order of 22nd October, 2018 declines petitioner’s application for getting Suraj Mal and Dimple Ahuja summoned in defence.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that name of Suraj Mal is very much mentioned in the suicide note and the evidence of Dimple Ahuja is

necessary to prove the financial transaction which has an important bearing on the facts of instant case. It is also stated that the case is pending

before trial court for recording of evidence.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State supports the impugned order.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, I find that if petitioner is not allowed to get Suraj Mal and Dimple Ahuja examined and cross-

examined, then his defence would be prejudiced, as the evidence of these two witnesses has a vital bearing on the merits of the case.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside with direction to trial court to summon Suraj Mal and Dimple Ahuja for recording of evidence on the date

fixed. Let the trial court make all the endeavours to conclude the defence evidence on the date so fixed.

This petition and application are accordingly disposed of with aforesaid directions, while not commenting on merits.

Dasti.