Dismissed¶13

Dhirender Kumar Tyagi @ Nitu v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC2 Apr 2026CRL.REV.P./72/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 311 Cr.P.C. re-call of witness; PW-6 Urmila Tyagi; cross-examination deferred at defence's request; FSL mobile-phone exhibit; Article 21 fair trial; 7-year delay in application; change of defence counsel no ground for de-novo; Trial Court discretion judicious; no illegality in impugned order; criminal revision dismissed (Delhi HC, Manoj Jain J., 02.04.2026); next date 28.07.2026 cancelled.

What did the court decide?

Early hearing granted - matter pre-poned and taken up the same day (02.04.2026); substantively no relief on the Section 311 Cr.P.C. grievance as the revision petition was dismissed. ¶13

Dhirender Kumar Tyagi @ Nitu Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Early hearing granted - matter pre-poned and taken up the same day (02.04.2026); substantively no relief on the Section 311 Cr.P.C. grievance as the revision petition was dismissed.

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Trial Court's treatment of the accused's Section 311 Cr.P.C. application to re-call PW-6 amounted to a denial of any fair opportunity (engaging the Article 21 fair-trial right), such as to warrant this Court's interference with the impugned order.

¶9

Court's answer

The facts on record are totally different from the claim made: the defence was accommodated on multiple occasions, and by no stretch of imagination can it be said to be a case of denial of any fair opportunity to cross-examine PW-6.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

It is not explained why the Section 311 Cr.P.C. application was filed after a delay of 7 years; merely because there is a change in the defence counsel does not mean that everything should start de-novo.

¶11

Key takeaways

This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order: there is no illegality or impropriety therein, and the discretion was exercised by the learned Trial Court in a judicious manner.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court, order dated 02.04.2026 (Manoj Jain, J.), CRL.REV.P. 72/2026 (order heading pairs it with CRL.M.A. 10079/2026 seeking early hearing; caption shows CRL.M.A. 10080/2026): Revision by Dhirender Kumar Tyagi @ Nitu against the learned Trial Court's order on his application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to re-call PW-6 Urmila Tyagi, moved about seven years after she last entered the witness box, on the claim that denial of cross-examination vitiated the accused's fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India ensuring fair trial. Witness history traced by the Court: first appearance 20.03.2014 with examination-chief deferred pending return of a mobile-phone exhibit sent to FSL; further examination 17.07.2025 with cross-examination deferred at the defence's request (main counsel unavailable); cross-examined at length on 20.11.2015 and further cross-examination on 15.07.2017, again deferred at the defence counsel's request; discharged on 06.04.2018 when there was no cross-examination from the accused's side. Held: the defence was accommodated on multiple occasions and the record discloses no denial of fair opportunity; the seven-year delay in filing the application is unexplained and a change of defence counsel does not mean everything starts de-novo; consequently there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order, whose discretion was exercised judiciously. Petition dismissed; pending application disposed of; next date 28.07.2026 cancelled.

¶1

$~66

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.REV.P. 72/2026 & CRL.M.A. 10080/2026 DHIRENDER KUMAR TYAGI @ NITU

¶4

.....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Abhishek Tyagi, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

¶8

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 02.04.2026 CRL.REV.P. 72/2026 & CRL.M.A. 10079/2026 (seeking early hearing)

¶12

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that in compliance of the directions given by this Court on 29.01.2026, he has already filed certified copies of the relevant order-sheets and testimony of PW-6-Urmila Tyagi.

¶13

It seems that on account of some objections pointed out by the Registry, the same are still on record.

¶14

Revisionist seeks early hearing for the reason that the learned Trial Court has already started hearing final arguments and since learned APP for the State is also ready with the arguments, the date is pre-poned and the matter is taken up today itself.

¶15

During course of the arguments, learned counsel for the revisionist has shown the relevant order-sheets and testimony of PW-6-Urmila Tyagi which would indicate that she entered into witness box for the first time on 20.03.2014 and, thereafter, her examination-chief was deferred as one exhibit

¶16

CRL.REV.P. 72/2026 1

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/04/2026 at 12:53:18

¶19

i.e. mobile phone, which had been sent to FSL, had not been received back. 5. Thereafter, she was further examined on 17.07.2025 and after her examination-chief, when the witness was tendered for cross-examination, such cross was deferred on the request of the defence as the main counsel was not available.

¶20

On 20.11.2015, she was cross-examined at length and, thereafter, her further cross-examination was conducted on 15.07.2017 also. However, it was not completed on that day and at the request of the defence counsel, her further cross-examined was deferred.

¶21

Thereafter, when she entered into witness box on 06.04.2018, there was no cross-examination from the side of the accused and witness was, accordingly, discharged.

¶22

After around 7 years of her lastly entering into witness box, the revisionist moved an application before the learned Trial Court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to re-call PW-6 while also claiming that no opportunity was given to the accused for cross-examination of the abovesaid witness which has resulted in vitiation of her fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which ensures fair trial.

¶23

However, the facts appearing on record are totally different and by no stretch of imagination, it can be said to be a case of denial of any fair opportunity.

¶24

On the contrary, the defence was accommodated on multiple occasions.

¶25

Moreover, it is not explained as to why the abovesaid application was filed after delay of 7 years and merely because there is change in the defence counsel would not mean that everything should start de-novo.

¶26

CRL.REV.P. 72/2026 2

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/04/2026 at 12:53:18

¶29

This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order as there is no illegality or impropriety therein and the discretion has been exercised by learned Trial Court in a judicious manner.

¶30

The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶31

Pending application also stands disposed of.

¶32

The next date i.e. 28.07.2026 is cancelled.

¶33

MANOJ JAIN, J

¶34

APRIL 2, 2026/ss/sa

¶35

CRL.REV.P. 72/2026 3

¶36

This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/04/2026 at 12:53:18

Dhirender Kumar Tyagi @ Nitu v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhirender Kumar Tyagi @ Nitu v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajinder Kumar Jain Vs State of NCT Delhi

Suhail Ahmad Makhdoomi Vs Edusoft It Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Rajender Kumar , (Deceased) & Ors. Vs the State of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Ashu Singh and Anr. Vs the NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Bhola Ram Vs State, NCT of Delhi

Sh Deepak Datt Rhrama @ Deepak Dutt Sharma and Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.