A Sessions Court in West Delhi has issued notice to the Station House Officer (SHO) and the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) concerned after finding that the case diary produced in a rape case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was neither duly paginated nor countersigned as required.
The order was passed by Dr. Yadvender Singh, ASJ-05 (West), while hearing a regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in FIR registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden under Sections 64(1) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The accused has sought regular bail. The matter was argued at length for nearly one and a half hours, with Senior Advocate Amit Chadha along with Advocate Yash Giri appearing for the applicant, Senior Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir representing the complainant, and the State being represented by the learned Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor.
During the hearing, counsel for the complainant sought time to place on record material showing the alleged mode of communication between the parties. The Investigating Officer informed the court that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS was yet to be recorded and was fixed for the same day.
When the Investigating Officer produced the case diary, the Court noted serious procedural irregularities. Upon perusal, it observed that the diary was neither properly paginated nor countersigned by the SHO and the ACP concerned. Taking exception to this lapse, the Court directed issuance of notice to both officers, requiring them to appear in person on the next date of hearing and explain the deficiency. The Court further directed that its stamp be affixed on all pages of the case diary produced.
The defence also raised allegations regarding the conduct of another police officer, SI Prakash Kashyap, stating that he had visited the accused’s residence on two occasions, including the date of arrest, and had issued a notice. It was contended that even prior to registration of the FIR, the present Investigating Officer and SI, along with other officials, were attempting to apprehend the accused on varying allegations.
In light of these submissions, the Court issued notice to SI, directing him to appear in person and file a reply addressing the allegations on the next date of hearing.
The interim order operating in favour of the accused has been directed to continue until the next date. The matter has been listed for further arguments on February 28, 2026.
Appearances:
Sh. G.C. Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. None for the Delhi Commission for Women.
Sh. Amit Chadha, learned Senior Counsel, along with Sh. Yash Giri, Sh. Mohit Siwach and Sh. Harjas Singh, learned counsel for the applicant/accused.
Sh. Suchakshu Jain, Sh. Rishabh Jain and Sh. Gaurav Patel, learned counsel for the complainant (fresh vakalatnama filed).
W/SI Saroj, Investigating Officer, present.