Delhi Court Rebuffs Police's 'Sensitive' FIR Claim, Upholds Accused's Rights in CM Attack Case - 2025-09-27

Delhi Court Rebuffs Police's "Sensitive" FIR Claim, Upholds Accused's Rights in CM Attack Case

NEW DELHI – In a significant ruling that reinforces the bedrock principles of due process, a Delhi court has directed the Delhi Police to furnish a copy of the First Information Report (FIR) to the man accused of attacking Chief Minister Rekha Gupta. The order from the Tis Hazari Courts rebuffed the police's attempt to withhold the document by classifying it as "sensitive," underscoring that an accused's fundamental right to information cannot be curtailed by internal administrative labels.

Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Gaurav Goyal, presiding over the matter, mandated the provision of the FIR to the accused, Rajesh Bhai Khimji Bhai Sakariya, within 24 hours. The decision came in response to an application filed by Sakariya, who contended that the denial of the FIR was impeding his ability to mount an effective legal defense, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

The case concerns the high-profile incident on August 20, 2025, where Sakariya, a 41-year-old autorickshaw driver, allegedly assaulted CM Gupta during a public grievance session at her official residence. He faces serious charges, including attempted murder and assault on a public servant.

---

The Court's Directive and the Underlying Legal Principle

At the heart of the court's order is the well-settled legal doctrine, repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court of India, that an accused individual is unequivocally entitled to a copy of the FIR registered against them. JMFC Goyal's order explicitly cited this precedent as the determinative factor.

"In view thereof, the instant application is allowed and IO concerned is directed to supply the copy of FIR within 24 hours against due acknowledgment," the Magistrate's order stated.

However, recognizing the high-profile nature of the case, the court balanced the accused's right with the prosecution's concerns about the potential misuse of information. The order included a crucial rider: “Accused is also directed not to publish, circulate or disseminate the contents of the FIR in the public domain or to any third party without the permission of this court.” This condition aims to protect the integrity of the investigation and prevent media trials while ensuring the accused has the necessary documents for his defense.

This judicial balancing act is a practical application of the guidelines often laid down in such matters, where the right to information for the defense is harmonized with the need for procedural confidentiality.

A Clash of Arguments: "Sensitive" Classification vs. Natural Justice

The hearing witnessed a direct clash between the prosecution's claims of sensitivity and the defense's assertion of fundamental rights. The Delhi Police, through the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), vigorously opposed Sakariya’s application. Their primary argument was that the FIR had been internally classified as "sensitive," which, in their view, justified withholding it at this stage of the investigation. The police further argued that the application was “premature and not maintainable.”

This stance reflects a common but legally tenuous practice by law enforcement agencies to use internal classifications to control the flow of information, even from individuals directly impacted by it.

In a partial concession during the proceedings, the SPP submitted that the FIR could be shared, but only if the accused provided an undertaking that he would not circulate its contents.

Sakariya’s counsel, Pradeep Khatri, strongly countered this proposition. The defense argued that the law does not mandate any such undertaking as a precondition for an accused to receive the FIR. Withholding the document, they contended, "would amount to a violation of natural justice and due process." The defense emphasized that the FIR is not merely a procedural document but the foundational instrument that sets the criminal justice machinery in motion. Its contents—including the initial allegations, the sections of law invoked, and the timeline of events—are indispensable for the accused to understand the charges and prepare a defense strategy, including applying for bail.

Legal Implications and Supreme Court Precedent

The court's decision, while seemingly procedural, carries significant weight. It serves as a potent reminder to law enforcement agencies that the right of an accused to a copy of the FIR is not a matter of discretion but a component of the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 21.

The ruling aligns perfectly with the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India (2016) . In that case, the apex court mandated the uploading of FIRs on state police websites within 24 hours of their registration, with exceptions carved out only for a narrow category of sensitive cases, such as those involving terrorism, insurgency, or sexual offenses against women and children.

Even in those exceptional cases, the Supreme Court clarified that a person aggrieved by the non-publication of an FIR could approach the Superintendent of Police, and if a remedy is not found, they have the right to approach the competent Magistrate. The judgment firmly established that an accused is entitled to a copy of the FIR at the earliest. The Tis Hazari Court's order is a direct enforcement of this established jurisprudence, rejecting the police's broad and unsubstantiated claim of "sensitivity" as insufficient grounds to deny a fundamental right.

For legal practitioners, this order reinforces the argument that a mere administrative classification cannot override a judicially-guaranteed right. It provides a clear, recent precedent to cite when facing similar resistance from prosecution agencies.

Case Background and Next Steps

The accused, Rajesh Bhai Khimji Bhai Sakariya, and an alleged associate, Tahseen Syed, are currently in judicial custody, which has been extended until October 6, 2025, to allow the police more time for investigation. Both men were presented before the court via video conference for the custody extension.

With the court's directive, the case is set to move forward. Upon receiving the FIR, Sakariya’s legal team will be in a position to scrutinize the allegations and frame their defense. This will likely be followed by further procedural steps, including the filing of a charge sheet by the police and subsequent arguments on the framing of charges.

The court’s unequivocal order ensures that the initial and most critical phase of the criminal trial will proceed on the constitutionally sound footing of transparency and adherence to due process.