CRL.M.C. 3517/2021

Page 1 of 33

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 16^th FEBRUARY, 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

+

CRL.M.C. 3517/2021

ANOOP SINGH KARAYAT

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Tarun Chandiok, Advocate.

versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate

with Mr. Amit Chadha, APP, Ms.

Manvi Priya, SPP, Mr. A.T. Ansari,

Mr. Sanjeevi Seshadri and Mr. Sukrit

Seth, Advocates with IO/SI Nikhil

Chaudhary.

Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with

Ms. Raavi Sharma, Advocate for the

complainant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

1.

Vide the present petitions, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the Order

dated 03.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala

House Courts, rejecting the application of the Petitioner herein filed under

Section 389(2) Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence during the pendency of

Appeal.

2.

It is pertinent to mention here that the impugned Order arises from a

batch of criminal appeals, being Crl. Appeals No. 89/2021 (filed by the co-

accused - Gopal Ansal), 90/2021 (filed by the co-accused -Sushil Ansal),

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000586

CRL.M.C. 3517/2021

Page 2 of 33

91/2021 (filed by the co-accused - P.P. Batra), 92/2021 (filed by the co-

accused - Dinesh Chandra Sharma) and 95/2021 (filed by Anoop Singh

Karayat, the Petitioner herein). Co-accused Gopal Ansal and Sushil Ansal

have also challenged the Order impugned herein by filing CRL.M.C.

3276/2021 & CRL.M.C. 3277/2021 respectively. All the petitions were

heard together. Mr. Arvind Nigam, learned Senior Counsel appeared for

Sushil Ansal (Petitioner in CRL.M.C. 3276/2021), and Dr. Abhishek Manu

Singhvi, Mr. N. Hariharan, and Mr. Pramod K. Dubey, learned Senior

Counsels appeared for Gopal Ansal (Petitioner in CRL.M.C. 3277/2021).

I.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3.

For a better understanding of the instant petition, it is imperative to

narrate the backdrop of the entire episode, which is stated as under:

A.The genesis of the entire proceedings stems from the devastating

fire that occurred in Uphaar Cinema on 13.06.1997 which

resulted in the death of 59 people due to asphyxia and caused

injuries to more than 100 people. Initially the investigation was

conducted by Delhi Police and later on it was transferred to the

CBI which registered a case, being case No. RC-3

(S)/97/SIC.IV/New Delhi. After investigation, charge-sheet was

filed on 15.11.1997 against 16 persons. There was delay in trial

and a petition, being Criminal Writ Petition No. 353/2002, was

filed by the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy

(hereinafter, “AVUT”) before this Court for a direction to

expedite the trial. This Court vide Order dated 04.04.2002 in

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000586

CRL.M.C. 3517/2021

Page 3 of 33

Criminal Writ Petition No. 353/2002, titled as Association of

Victims of Uphaar Tragedy v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.,

directed the Ld. Trial Court to conduct the trial for ten days in a

month from May 2002 onwards, except for June 2002. It was

directed that the Ld. Trial Court shall adjust its calendar suitably

in consultation with the Ld. Principal District and Sessions

Judge, if need be, to explore that no other matter was taken up on

the fixed dates. CBI was directed to take steps to ensure that

sufficient numbers of witnesses were present and available on the

dates fixed for prosecution evidence. The Trial Court was

directed to complete the examination of prosecution witnesses on

a day-to-day basis. It was also directed that no adjournments

would be granted for non-availability of a defence counsel

resulting in deferring of the cross-examination of a prosecution

witness and in that event, it would be open to the Ld. Trial Court

to take recourse to various options in terms of Section 309

Cr.P.C, including closure