Full Judgment Text
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 16.05.2026
+ CRL.REV.P. 531/2025 & CRL.M.A. 37587/2025
JAGDEEP SINGH @ JAGGA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vimal Tyagi, Advocate ( through
video conferencing ).
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
with SI Ashish Yadav and SI Nikhil
Raman.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. One of the disconcerting issues raised in the present case is as to what
should be the inherent nature and extent of “protest”. Can it be legitimately
termed “protest” where the so-called protestors, after burning on road effigy
of an individual, cross the road, followed by broad footpath and even the
service road in order to throw the burning portions of the effigy on the
rooftop of the guardroom of the official bungalow of the person being
protested against when security men present inside the gate even try to stop
them, after which the so-called protestors would immediately in cowardly
manner flee away, instead of as a mark of protest letting the law
enforcement agency take them into custody? The answer is a resounding No.
This is nothing but a brazenly disruptive activity.
CRL.REV.P. 531/2025 Page 1 of 6 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa
, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.05.16 05:57:58 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:16.05.2026
18:21:43
2. In the present case, the allegation against the petitioners according to
the FIR, supported by statements of eyewitnesses and even CCTV footage,
is that on 21.06.2022 at about 04:30pm, they collected outside the gate of
official bungalow of a prominent political personality at Moti Lal Nehru
Marg and started raising slogans, in the course whereof they also burned
effigy of the said prominent person on the main road; that thereafter they
carried the burning effigy with the help of dandas and threw the burning
effigy on gate and rooftop of the security room of the bungalow; and that
thereafter, they fled the spot. The entire incident was captured in the CCTV
camera installed there and the CCTV footage forms part of the chargesheet.
3. Against the above backdrop, after hearing both sides the learned trial
court dismissed the discharge application of the present petitioners by way
of order which is impugned in these proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that neither there was any
injury caused to anyone nor there was any intention to kill, so the charge for
offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. It is also contended that
since no deadly weapon was used by the petitioners and their intention was
only to protest, no case for offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. It is
also contended that the provision under Section 285 IPC covers the acts
alleged against the petitioners. It is also argued that since no explosive was
used, no offence under Section 436 IPC is made out. However, learned
CRL.REV.P. 531/2025 Page 2 of 6 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec
45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15
570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801
e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.05.16 05:57:49 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:16.05.2026
18:21:43
counsel for petitioners submits that he does not challenge the charge for
offences under Section 147/149/188 IPC.
5. Learned APP assisted by IO/SI Nikhil strongly opposes the petition,
contending that what was sought by the petitioners before the trial court was
discharge and in view of admission of learned counsel that charge for
offences under Section 147/149/188 IPC is made out, there is no question of
discharge. Further, learned APP has read over to me the statements of the
eyewitnesses of the alleged occurrence in support of his contention that the
same clearly shows intention of the petitioners to kill the guards standing
inside the bungalow.
6. At request of learned counsel for petitioners, learned APP has also
played the CCTV footage before me as the same forms part of the
chargesheet.
7. So far as the legal position is concerned, it is not in dispute that for the
purposes of framing charge, what has to be seen by the court is as to whether
the chargesheet and the documents filed therewith, give rise to a grave
suspicion that the accused committed the crime for which he has been
chargesheeted by prosecution.
8. To begin with, the CCTV footage of the incident, which is relied upon
by not just the prosecution but even the defence side depicts the incident as
CRL.REV.P. 531/2025 Page 3 of 6 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec
45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15
570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801
e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.05.16 05:57:39 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:16.05.2026
18:21:43
follows. The petitioners carrying an effigy reach on the main road near a tree
and then they burn the effigy, after which they carry the burning effigy on a
wooden pole and after main road they cross a wide footpath followed by a
wide service road in front of the said bungalow and throw the burning effigy
across. If it was a simple protest outside house of that prominent person, it
remains unexplained as to why the petitioners would, after burning the
effigy, go across to the other end, after crossing the wide footpath followed
by the wide service road and then throw the burning effigy across the gate
and rooftop of the security room of the bungalow. The CCTV footage, relied
upon by both sides completely demolishes the argument of learned counsel
for petitioners that it was simply a protest.
9. So far as the offence under Section 307 IPC is concerned, merely
because nobody got injured and fortunately so, it cannot be said that charge
for offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. Taking an example, if A
fires a shot at B, but that shot misfires and does not hit B, it cannot be said
that A did not intend to murder B. Further, the manifestation of mens rea
requisite to make out an offence under Section 307 IPC is not just an
intention to kill. The provision under Section 300 IPC clearly stipulates that
the culpable homicide would be murder if the actus reus is done with the
intention to cause death or if it is done with the intention of causing bodily
injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to death or if the person
committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in
CRL.REV.P. 531/2025 Page 4 of 6 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec
45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15
570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e
26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.05.16 05:57:29 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:16.05.2026
18:21:43
all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death
and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing
death or such injury. For the purpose of framing charge for offence under
Section 307 IPC, in my considered view the ingredients recorded above are
clearly met out. To say the least, the petitioners cannot deny knowledge that
their act of throwing the burning effigy across the gate where security men
were standing and on the rooftop of the security room was so imminently
dangerous that it must, in all probability would have caused death though for
the good fortune of those security men, they escaped unhurt. In any case, the
FIR itself specifically alleges that the petitioners tried to kill the security
personnel present inside the gate.
10. Coming to the offence under Section 436 IPC, merely because no
explosive was used, it cannot be said that the offence is not made out. For,
the offence under Section 436 IPC covers mischief by not just explosive
substance but even by fire, which is the present case as describe above.
11. Coming to the provision under Section 285 IPC, which according to
learned counsel is the relevant offence under which charge ought to have
been framed, I am unable to convince myself to agree with the submission.
For, Section 285 IPC contemplates a negligent conduct. It is nobody’s case
that the petitioners negligently threw the burning effigy across the gate of
the bungalow and/or its security room. What the petitioners did was not a
negligent act; it was clearly an intentional act.
CRL.REV.P. 531/2025 Page 5 of 6 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af
3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT
OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003,
st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996
b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.05.16 05:57:20 +05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:16.05.2026
18:21:43
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
12. To reiterate, protests do form a significant part of a democracy. But
violence in the name of protest cannot be acceptable to any tenet of
demosprudence . Such acts of shoot and scoot do not constitute protest. It is
indeed a matter of serious concern that a section of society today thrives on
such disruptive activities in the name of protest.
13. Of course, now a cautious rider: the above observations shall have no
bearing on the final outcome of trial, and at that stage the learned trial court
shall take view on the basis of evidence adduced during trial, independent of
above observations.
14. I am unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order, so the same
is upheld. The present petition is not just devoid of merit but is completely
frivolous, so dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited by the
petitioners online with www.bharatkeveer.gov.in within one week.
Accompanying application also stands dismissed.
15. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court to ensure compliance as
regards cost.
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4af
ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc
a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d
15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff
801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.05.16 05:57:08 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
MAY 16, 2026/ ry
CRL.REV.P. 531/2025 Page 6 of 6 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:16.05.2026
18:21:43