Back
Denies Stay on CM Assault Trial
In a decisive ruling, the
has refused to halt trial court proceedings against two men accused of a brazen attack on Haryana Chief Minister Rekha Gupta during a public hearing at her Civil Lines residence. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, hearing petitions challenging the framing of charges, emphasized a high threshold for intervening in ongoing trials, remarking,
"I do not believe in staying something unless I am very clear that something wrong is going on or will go on. I do not see that [here] at all."
The court also issued directives for expedited forensic analysis of the accused's mobile phones, underscoring their potential to unravel conspiracy links, while questioning why non-residents from Gujarat would travel hundreds of kilometers to participate in a Delhi protest. With evidence recording set to commence shortly, this decision signals judicial impatience with delay tactics in serious criminal matters involving public officials.
The case, titled TEHSIN RAZA RAFIULLAH SHAIKH ALIS BAPU v. State & other connected matter (CRL.REV.P. 203/2026), highlights tensions between defense pleas for pre-trial relief and prosecution imperatives in high-stakes assault cases under the . Both accused remain in judicial custody as the trial at progresses.
The Incident: Attack During Public Hearing
The alleged assault unfolded on , at Chief Minister Rekha Gupta's camp office in north Delhi's Civil Lines area during a " " —a public grievance redressal forum popular among political leaders for direct citizen engagement. According to the FIR registered at , one of the accused, Sakriya Rajeshbhai Khimjibhai (also referred to as Rajeshbhai Khimjibhai Sakariya), breached the security perimeter, pushed the Chief Minister to the ground, and attempted to strangle her by pressing on her throat. A bystander, identified as Dhirender—a public person who intervened—suffered simple injuries after being struck by the assailant.
swiftly arrested Rajeshbhai, a resident of Rajkot, Gujarat. Investigations led to the second accused, Tahseen Raza (variously named Tahsin Raza Rafiullah Shaikh, Tehsin Raza Sheikh, or Syed Tahsin Raza), arrested four days later in Rajkot based on Rajeshbhai's disclosure. Police alleged a premeditated conspiracy hatched in Gujarat, supported by call detail records (CDR), a Rs 2,000 bank transfer from Raza to Rajeshbhai, and CCTV footage showing Rajeshbhai conducting reconnaissance near the CM's Shalimar Bagh residence a day prior. Notably, Rajeshbhai had reportedly sent video clips of the camp office to Raza's mobile.
The charge sheet, filed on , invoked serious provisions under BNS, setting the stage for framed charges two months later.
Trial Court Frames Serious Charges
On , the , after reviewing , framed charges against both accused. The court found sufficient material for offenses including:
- (criminal conspiracy) read with (obstructing a public servant), (assaulting a public servant), and (attempt to murder).
- Additional charges against Rajeshbhai under , (voluntarily causing hurt), 221 , and .
The trial judge observed that Rajeshbhai's actions demonstrated , noting the potential lethality of throat compression: pushing the CM down and throttling her neck caused injuries documented in the medico-legal certificate (MLC). CCTV, CDR, and digital evidence bolstered the conspiracy angle, despite Raza's absence from the scene. The court summoned key witnesses, including the medical chief, MLC examiner, and the CM's personal security officer (PSO), with evidence recording slated for .
This framing order prompted the accused to approach the , arguing insufficient evidence—particularly for conspiracy (mere Rs 2,000 transfer) and attempt to murder (claimed "simple injuries" per MLC, no FIR mention of strangulation).
High Court Hearing: Petitions and Arguments
Justice Bhambhani heard the revision petitions on , where counsel for the accused— —sought an immediate stay to prevent evidence recording, contending the charges were baseless. For Raza, they highlighted his non-presence and the transfer as innocuous. For Rajeshbhai, emphasis was on the MLC indicating simple hurt and discrepancies in the FIR versus charge sheet.
counsel countered, stressing the physical disparity (male accused vs. female victim), the gravity of jugular pressure—
"even light pressure can be fatal"
—and the need for mobile forensics, dubbing phones
"the repository of all secrets."
They urged expedition given the accused's out-of-state origins, which raised conspiracy red flags.
Justice Bhambhani's Key Remarks
The judge's observations cut to the core. Dismissing stay pleas, he stated the matter was
"not as simple as being argued by the counsel."
Probing the accused's
, Justice Bhambhani remarked:
“I still do not understand why you were in Delhi at all. Pardon me for saying this, but ordinarily, people who are taxi drivers or auto drivers have to keep working every day. They may not be daily wagers, but they do not give up their work to show up in a State hundreds of kilometres away to participate in a protest."
This skepticism on motive echoes broader judicial trends scrutinizing "imported" agitators in politically charged incidents, potentially influencing cases involving protests at leaders' residences.
Forensic Directions and Next Steps
Acknowledging mobiles' evidentiary value, the court directed the to expedite examination of the devices and submit a status report within four weeks. Notice was issued to , with the matter listed for . Trial proceedings continue unabated, with prosecution evidence imminent.
Legal Analysis: Threshold for Staying Trials
Under —successor to CrPC 482—High Courts exercise sparingly for stays, guided by Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1978): stays warranted only on twin conditions of (i) exceptional/undue hardship and (ii) clear prejudice. Here, Justice Bhambhani applied this rigorously, finding no "wrong going on," prioritizing trial momentum at the evidence stage.
On charges: BNS (attempt to murder) requires intent and overt acts towards death; the court's jugular remark aligns with medical jurisprudence (carotid occlusion can cause unconsciousness in seconds). Conspiracy (BNS 61(2)) demands agreement for criminal purpose—bolstered by digital trails, distinguishing from mere association ( Yusufalli Esmail Nagree v. State of Maharashtra , 1967).
Defense arguments falter against ( State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agravwal , 1996), where detailed inquiry is deferred to trial.
Implications for Criminal Procedure and Political Cases
This ruling reinforces anti-delay jurisprudence post-BNSS, curbing routine stays that prolong high-profile trials. For lawyers, it spotlights:
- Forensic tech's primacy : Mobile data (WhatsApp, transfers) as conspiracy linchpins, urging early FSL pushes.
- Motive scrutiny : Questions on non-local presence may aid Section /221 cases against "protestors" at public forums.
- Political assaults : In contexts, elevates protected officials' security, potentially expanding BNS applicability.
Impacts ripple to practice: Prosecutions gain leverage in evidence-phase interventions; defenses must proffer stronger prejudice proofs. Amid BNS teething issues, it exemplifies seamless transition from IPC, affirming judicial continuity.
Looking Ahead
As forensics unfold and evidence records, this case may test conspiracy thresholds in digital-age crimes. Justice Bhambhani's measured approach—balancing rights without paralysis—offers a template for peers, ensuring justice for victims like CM Gupta prevails over procedural skirmishes. Legal observers await the May 21 hearing, where FSL insights could solidify or unravel the duo's fates.
