AJAY JINDAL vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Judgment text excerpt

$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 06th February, 2026 + CRL.M.C. 641/2026 & CRL.M.A. 2524-2525/2026 AJAY JINDAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anand Kumar, Mr. Pankaj Aggarwal and Mr. Harshit Rajput, Advocates versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for State SI Prashant Kumar, PS North Rohini CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is facing trial for commission of offences under Section 354A Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, arising out of FIR No. 31/2019 dated 24.01.2019, registered at P.S. Rohini, Delhi. 2. Charges were framed and the prosecution examined all its witnesses and the case was fixed for final arguments. 3. It was at that stage of the case that an application under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed by the accused (petitioner herein), whereby he prayed that PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-12 be recalled for cross-examination. According to the case of petitioner, prosecution seemed to be relying upon some CCTV footage. However, such CCTV footage, reportedly contained in a pen-drive, was never Signature Not Verified Signed By:SONIA CRL.M.C. 641/2026 1 THAPLIYAL Signing Date:07.02.2026 14:36:20 played during the trial and was not even sent to FSL. In order to disprove the allegations against him, the accused wanted such CCTV footage to be played and to confront all the witnesses with the same. However, his such application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 13.08.2025. 4. Interestingly, when application under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed by the prosecution, contending that the pen-drive was containing piece of evidenc