At the stage of framing of charge, the Court must be satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for the accused to stand trial, and a strong suspicion suffices, founded on some material.

Chander Shekhar, J.

This criminal revision petition assails the order dated 31.01.2019 (hereinafter to be referred as the "impugned order") passed by the Special Judge-NDPS/ASJ (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred as "the Trial Court") in FIR No. 429/2018, registered at Police Station: Mehrauli, South Delhi, whereby charge was framed against the petitioner under Sections 186/353/307/482/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as "the IPC") and Sections 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Arms Act") and 34 of the IPC. A prayer has been made to set aside the said impugned order.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 11.07.2018, at about 8:00 AM, at Main Road, Chattarpur Mandir to CDR Chowk, near Hanuman Mandir, Chattarpur, Delhi, the two accused persons were riding a motorcycle No. DL 5SAT 1320 and they were intercepted by the police officers. It is alleged that, ASI Jitender and Ct. Naveen had hit the motorcycle of the accused persons due to which they fell down and subsequently, the two accused persons took off their helmets and threw them on the police officers. Further, it is alleged that the pillion rider had fired on ASI Jitender with his pistol and the bullet passed near the left shoulder of ASI Jitender. Thereafter, the other police officers also proceeded towards the accused persons and upon seeing them, the person who was driving the motorcycle also took out a pistol and fired two rounds towards the police. Thereafter, he jumped the road divider and ran towards the colony. Consequently, SI Rakesh, Ct. Kamaldeep, HC Ashok and Ct. Narender chased him. The pillion rider was overpowered by ASI Jitender and Ct. Naveen and they further snatched the pistol from his hand. The accused disclosed his name as Vineet Verma, son of Shri Suresh Chand Verma. Thereafter, HC Ashok and others returned and informed that the associate of the accused Vineet Verma, had snatched the motorcycle from a person and had fled towards Lado Sarai. On checking the pistol of Vineet Verma, two live cartridges were found and one fired round was also found near their motorcycle. Thereafter, the police conducted personal search of Vineet Verma and recovered a broken chain of yellow metal. The accused disclosed that he had snatched the chain at Sainik Farms, soon before being apprehended. On inquiry, the accused also disclosed that the motorcycle being used by him and his associate was a stolen motorcycle which he had purchased from a thief. Further, it was discovered by the police that the original number of the motorcycle was DL 5SAZ 7241 and the accused persons were using a fake number plate of DL 5SAT 1320. The name of the associate of the accused Vineet Verma was disclosed as Amit, son of Shri Kalyan. ("the petitioner", herein).

3. Thereafter, the afore-said FIR No.429/2018, was registered at Police Station: Mehrauli, South Delhi, under Sections 186, 353, 307, 482 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 25, 27 and 59 of the Arms Act against the accused persons.

4. Subsequently, investigation was carried out and the accused Vineet was arrested. Whilst searching his house the police recovered six yellow metal chains and the accused disclosed that he had snatched those chains with the help of the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order also reveals that a pistol containing two live cartridges was recovered from the house of the petitioner.

5. Thereafter, on 27.07.2018, the petitioner had surrendered before the Trial Court and his PC remand was obtained.

6. Subsequently, on 31.1.2019, the Trial Court after hearing both the parties and after perusing the material on record, passed the aforesaid impugned order on the point of charge and charge was framed against both the accused persons under Sections 186/353/307/482/34 of the IPC r/w Sections 27 of the Arms Act and 34 of the IPC.

7. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present criminal revision petition against t