Delhi District Court
State vs Satender @ Bona on 18 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI NAIN
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-07 : NORTH DISTRICT ROHINI
COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. Satender @ Bona
FIR No. 2/2013
U/s 25 Arms Act
PS: Swaroop Nagar
Date of Institution of case:-24.03.2014
Date of Judgment reserved:- 03.02.2026
Date on which Judgment pronounced:- 18.02.2026
JUDGMENT
Case Number : 528651/2016
Date of Commission of : 02.01.2013
offence
Name of the complainant : SI Jagdeep
Name and address of the : Satender @ Bona, S/o Mukhtiar Singh, R/o
accused Village Manpur, Tehsil : Khair, PS Tappal,
District Aligarh, UP
Offence complained of : 25/54/59 of Arms Act
Plea of accused : Not Guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JYOTI NAIN
Date:
NAIN 2026.02.18
19:02:28
+0530
State Vs. Satender @ Bona FIR No. 2/2013 PS Swaroop Nagar 1 of 13
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION : –
1. Vide this Judgment, this Court shall dispose of the present case u/s 25 of Arms
Act.
2. The story of the prosecution is that on 02.01.2013 at 04:30 PM at Kadi Pur
Road, near Pusta, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS. Swaroop Nagar, accused was
found in possession of one country made pistol and 1 magazine consisting of 4 live
cartridges given in sketches Mark A without having any permit or license in
contravention to the Section 3 of the Arms Act 1959 and thereby, accused committed
an offence punishable u/s 25 of Arms Act. After completing the formalities,
investigation was carried out.
3. Charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 25 Arms Act in the
court. Charge under section 25 of Arms Act was framed against the accused vide
order dated 03.02.2016 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined
following witnesses.
5. PW-1 is HC Sandeep, No. 1608/NW.
He deposed that on 02.01.2013, he was posted at PS Swaroop Nagar as HC. On
that day, he was working as DO and his duty hours were 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM. At
about 7:00 pm, Ct. Baljeet handed over rukka to him, which was sent by SI Jagdeep.
On the basis of which, he recorded FIR in the present case and he had brought in
court the original FIR register and copy of the FIR is Ex. PW-1/A bearing his
signature at point A (OSR). He also made endorsement on the rukka is Ex. PW-1/B
bearing his signature at point A. After registration of the case, he handed over copy of
FIR and original rukka to Ct. Baljeet for handing over the same to SI Jagdeep.
This witness is duly cross-examined by Ld. LAC for the accused.
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JYOTI NAIN
Date:
NAIN 2026.02.18
19:02:32
+0530
State Vs. Satender @ Bona FIR No. 2/2013 PS Swaroop Nagar 2 of 13
6. PW-2 is Ct. Anand No. 1375/Crime, currently posted at Special Team Crime
Branch, Prashant Vihar, Delhi.
He deposed that on 02.01.2013, he was posted at PS Swaroop Nagar as
Constable. On that day, they received secret information that one man will come from
Mukhmelpur to Kadipur, who will be in possession of illegal weapons and he can be
apprehended, if raided. Upon this. SI Jagdeep made DD entry No. 10A in rogmanza
and presented the secret informer before the SHO at about 3:00 pm. Thereafter, he
alongwith Ct. Baljeet, SI Jagdeep and secret informer formed a raiding party and at
about 3:30 pm, they left in a private vehicle and reached the spot ie., Kadipur Pushta.
Thereafter, SI Jagdeep asked 4-5 passing-by to join the investigation, however, they
refused to participate in the investigation citing personal reasons. They placed
barricades at the spot and at about 4:30 pm, one man came on motorcycle no.
DL-8SAU-5620 towards them without helmet. At the instance of secret informer,
they signaled him to stop and he tried to escape. He alongwith Ct. Baljeet
overpowered him at some distance from the barricading (15-20 meters). SI Jagdeep
thereupon made preliminary enquiry and found out that his name was Satender @
Bona and thereafter, SI Jagdeep had conducted the personal search of the accused
Satender @ Bona and found one Desi pistol along with 4 live cartridges. The
dimensions of the pistol was 21 cm barrel and butt of 8 cm. Thereafter, they seized
the weapon vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/A bearing his signature at point A.
Thereafter, IO put the pistol and 4 live cartridges in a plastic box and sealed the same
with the doctor tape and put the seal of JS. The FSL form was filed by the IO. Seal
after use was handed over to Ct. Baljeet. Thereafter, Ct. Baljeet took tehrir to PS for
registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, Ct. Baljeet came back at the spot and
handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir to the IO. Thereafter, the motorcycle
no, DL-8SAU-5620 was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/B bearing his signature
at point A. Thereafter, accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos are
Ex. PW-2/C and Ex. PW-2/D bearing his signatures at point A. The disclosure
statement of accused Satender @ Bona was recorded by the IO which is Ex. PW-2/E
Digitally signed
JYOTI by JYOTI NAIN
Date:
State Vs. Satender @ Bona FIR No. 2/2013 PS Swaroop Nagar 3 of 13 NAIN 2026.02.18
19:02:36
+0530
bearing his signature at point A. Accused stated in his disclosure statement that the
motorcycle which he was riding was stolen one. The IO prepared the site plan at his
instance. Thereafter, accused was taken to BJRM hospital for medical examination.
Thereafter, he was handed over at the PS and the case property was deposited in the
Malkhana. In this regard, IO recorded his statement. Witness correctly identifies the
case property i.e. Desi Pistol and 4 live cartridges.
This witness is duly cross-examined by Ld. LADC for the accused.
7. PW-3 is IPS Dr. A Koan, SP Itanagar, Arunachan Pradesh, Delhi.
He deposed that on 10.05.2013, he was posted as Additional DCP Police one
North-West District Delhi. He under his official signatures had provided sanction U/s
39 of the Arms Act and the same is Ex. PW-3/A (OSR) bearing his signatures at point
A.
This witness is not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the accused despite
opportunity being given.
8. PW-4 is SI Jagdeep No. D-4257, PS Swaroop Nagar, Delhi.
He deposed that on 02.01.2013, he was posted at PS Swaroop Nagar as an SI.
On that day, at about 3:00 pm, one secret informer came at the PS and informed him
that one person who would come from Mukhmelpur to Kadipur was having illegal
weapon with him and if raided he could be caught with such weapon. He reported the
matter to the concerned SHO and DD no. 10 A was recorded to this effect which is
Ex.PW-4/A bearing his name at point A. He constituted raiding party consisting Ct.
Anand, Ct. Baljeet, myself and secret informer. After that, they went to approach road
towards Kadipur village. He asked public persons to join the investigation but none
agreed and went away without disclosing their names and addresses. They put up the
barricades at the said road and started checking the vehicle. At about 4:30 pm, one
red color motorcycle bearing no. DL-8SAU-5620 was coming from Pushta towards
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JYOTI NAIN
State Vs. Satender @ Bona FIR No. 2/2013 PS Swaroop Nagar 4 of 13
Date:
NAIN 2026.02.18
19:02:40
+0530
Kadipur village. At the instance of secret informer, he asked the driver of said
motorcycle to stop at the barricades but the driver of the said vehicle took the U-turn
and trying the escape from the spot. The said motorcycle stopped with the help of
police officials and the driver of the said motorcycle was apprehended. Upon inquiry,
the driver of said motorcycle revealed his name as Satender @ Bona. He took the
formal search of the accused. One Desi pistol/katta was recovered from left dub of
the wearing jeans of accused. He opened the said pistol and upon checking it was
found having 4 live cartridges loaded inside the pistol. He prepared the sketch of
recovered weapon as well as recovered cartridges which is Ex. PW-4/B bearing his
signatures at point A. He measured the said recovered weapon the total length of the
same was 21 cm, length of barrel was 16.5 cm, length of the butt was 8 cm and length
of the magazine was 9cm and length of the cartridges was 2.5 cm and diameter of the
same was 1 cm. The said pistol was made of iron and Made in USA was written on
the barrel of said weapon. He put the case property in a pullanda and sealed it with
the seal of JS. He prepared seizure memo of the recovered pistol and cartridges which
is Ex. PW-2/A bearing his signatures at point B. Seal after use was handed to Ct.
Baljeet. He did not prepare handing over memo of the same. He filled FSL form.
Thereafter, he prepared rukka which is Ex. PW-4/C bearing his signature at point A
and handed over the same to Ct. Baljeet for registration of FIR. After registration of
FIR, Ct. Baljeet and Second IO SI Govind came at the spot. He handed over the case
file, case property, abovesaid motorcycle and accused to the second IO. Second IO
prepared site plan at his instance which is Ex. PW-4/D bearing his signature at point
A. Second IO recorded his statement to this regard.
This witness is duly cross-examined by Ld. LADC for the accused.
9. PW-5 is ASI Baljeet Singh, No. 6359/Security, Chanakya Puri, Delhi.
He deposed that on 02.01.2013, he was posted in PS-Swaroop Nagar as
Constable. On that day, he alongwith SI Jagdeep and Ct. Anand were present in PS,
where secret informer had informed that one person having illegal arms will come
Digitally signed
JYOTI by JYOTI NAIN
Date:
2026.02.18
State Vs. Satender @ Bona FIR No. 2/2013 PS Swaroop Nagar 5 of 13
NAIN 19:02:44
+0530
from the side of Mukhmel Pur and will go towards Kadipur. If raided, can be
apprehended with the illegal weapon. SI Jagdeep made DD entry regarding secret
information and informed to SHO about the secret information. On the direction of
SHO, he alongwith SI Jagdeep and Ct. Anand prepared raiding party. Raiding party
alongwith secret informer reached at Kadipur where IO/SI Jagdeep asked 2-3 persons
to join investigation. However, these persons left the place without telling their names
and addresses. IO installed barricading on road and start checking vehicles. At about
04.30 pm, one motorcycle whose rider was not having helmet was coming from the
side of Mukhmel Pur to whom secret informer pointed that this person have illegal
weapon. Secret informer left the place. Thereafter, he alongwith IO and Ct. Anand
stopped the motorcycle and apprehended one person. IO searched him and found one
country made pistol from the left dubb of worn jeans. IO opened the pistol and found
a magazine. Magazine was having 4 live cartridges. IO separated all the cartridges
and prepared sketch of all the weapons which is Ex.PW4/B bearing his signature at
point ‘B’. IO prepared pullanda after putting all the weapons in plastic jar and sealed
the same with seal with medical tape and affixed with seal JS. Thereafter, IO seized
all the weapons vide seizure memo i.e. Ex.PW2/A bearing his signature at point ‘B’.
IO prepared rukka and handed over to him. He went to PS, where he handed over
rukka to DO. After sometime, DO handed over him original rukka alongwith copy of
FIR. He alongwith SI Govind came back on spot. He handed over original rukka
alongwith copy of FIR to IO/SI Govind. IO recorded statement of SI Jagdeep. SI
Jagdeep left the place. IO seized motorcycle bearing no. DL-8SAU-5620 vide seizure
memo EX.PW2/B bearing his signature at point ‘B’. IO arrested and personally
searched accused Satender @ Bona vide memos Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D both
memos bearing his signature at point ‘B’. IO also recorded disclosure statement of
accused which is Ex.PW2/E bearing his signature at point ‘B. he alongwith IO and
case property came to PS, where accused was lodged in lockup and case property was
deposited in malkhana. IO recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. On 24.01.2013, on
the instruction of IO/SI Govind, he collected sealed sample from the MHCM and
Digitally
signed by
State Vs. Satender @ Bona FIR No. 2/2013 PS Swaroop Nagar 6 of 13
JYOTI JYOTI NAIN
Date:
NAIN 2026.02.18
19:02:49
+0530
deposited the same in FSL, Rohini, Delhi vide road certificate No. 6/21/13. Till the
case property remained in his possession, no tempering was effected with the sample.
He submitted the receiving copy to the MHCM. IO recorded his statement. He
correctly identified accused Satender @ Bona in the court.
This witness is duly cross-examined by Ld. LADC for the accused.
10. PW-6 is Insp. Gobind Singh Rawat, No. D-4420, posted at PS Cyber North-
East, Delhi.
He deposed that on 02.01.2013, he was posted in PS Swaroop Nagar as Sub.
Inspector. On that day, Ct. Baljeet handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to
him. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Baljeet reached at spot, where they met Ct. Anand
and SI Jagdeep, who produced accused alongwith case property to him. Thereafter, he
interrogated the accused and after interrogation, accused was arrested and personally
searched Satender @ Bona vide memos Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D both memos
bearing his signature at point ‘C’. IO also recorded disclosure statement of accused
which is Ex.PW2/E bearing his signature at point ‘C. He seized motorcycle bearing
no. DL-8SAU-5620 vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/B bearing his signature at point ‘C’.
He prepared site plan at the instance of SI Jagdeep which is Ex. PW-4/D which bears
his signatures at point A. Thereafter, they came back to PS and case property was
deposited in malkhana. Accused was medically examined at BJRM hospital and after
getting him examined, he was put behind lockup. He recorded statements of
witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. On 24.01.2013, on his instructions, Ct. Baljeet collected
sealed sample from the MHCM and deposited the same in FSL, Rohini, Delhi vide
Road Certificate No. 6/21/13. Till the case property remained in his possession, no
tempering was effected with the sample. He correctly identified accused Satender @
Bona in the court.
This witness is duly cross-examined by Ld. LADC for the accused.
Digitally signed JYOTI by JYOTI NAIN Date: 2026.02.18 NAIN 19:02:53 +0530
State Vs. Satender @ Bona FIR No. 2/2013 PS Swaroop Nagar 7 of 13
11. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 16.05.2025 and statement of
accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C r/w 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 19.08.2025, wherein, the
accused pleaded innocence but did not lead any evidence in his defence.
12. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that from ocular and documentary
evidence or record, prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt that
accused was found in possession of one country made pistol and 1 magazine
consisting of 4 live cartridges and submitted that accused should be convicted of the
offence charged.
13. Per contra, it is argued by Ld. counsel for accused that neither any person was
made witness nor any handing over memo of seal was prepared. Further, no notice
was served to the public persons, hence, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted.
14. I have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel
for the accused and perused the documents on record carefully.
15. Points for determination : –
That on 02.01.2013 at 4:30 PM at Kadi Pur Road, near Pusta, Delhi within the
jurisdiction of PS. Swaroop Nagar, accused was found in possession of one country
made pistol and 1 magazine consisting of 4 live cartridges given in sketches Mark A
without having any permit or license in contravention to the Section 3 of the Arms
Act 1959 and thereby, accused committed an offence punishable u/s 25 of Arms Act.
The countrymade pistol and 1 magazine consisting of 4 live cartridges was seized and
taken into possession by the police.
16. From the over all testimony of the witnesses, it is clear that the IO has not
joined any public witness in the investigation. In fact, not even an effort was made to
join the public witnesses. There is a possibility that it was a chance recovery,
however, at the time and place from where the accused was apprehended and when
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JYOTI
Date:
NAIN
State Vs. Satender @ Bona FIR No. 2/2013 PS Swaroop Nagar 8 of 13 NAIN 2026.02.18
19:02:57
+0530
the formalities were being completed, there must be public persons around as it is a
public place, which is expected to be crowded with people.
Also, no reason as to why no public witness could be found has been put forth
by the prosecution. All the witnesses examined are police witnesses. This casts a
doubt about the sincere efforts made by the IO to join independent witnesses.
17. Regarding the importance of joining independent witness during investigation
in a case like the present one, reliance may be placed on ” Anoop Joshi Vs. State
1999(2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), wherein, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has observed as
under:
“18. It is repeatedly laid down by this court that in such
cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts
have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present
case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been
made, particularly when we find that shops were open and
one or two shopkeepers could have been persuaded to join
the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the
appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join
the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal
action against such shopkeepers because they could not have
escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their
legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen,
which is an offence under the IPC“.
18. Similarly, in Nanak Chand Vs. State of Delhi reported as DHC 1992 CRI LJ
55, it is observed as under :-
“that the recovery is proved by three police officials who
have differed on who snatched the Kirpan from the petitioner
and at what time. The recovery was from a street with houses
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JYOTI NAIN
Date:
NAIN 2026.02.18
State Vs. Satender @ Bona FIR No. 2/2013 PS Swaroop Nagar
19:03:01
9 of 13 +0530
on both sides and shops nearby. And, yet no witness from
the public has been produced. Not that in every case the
police officials are to be treated as unworthy of reliance but
their failure to join witnesses from the public especially
when they are available at their elbow, may, as in the present
case, cast doubt. They have again churned out a stereotyped
version. Its rejection needs no Napoleon on the Bridge at
Arcola”.
19. Also, in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1872, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India held as under :-
“It therefore emerges that non-compliance of these provisions
i.e. Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. would amount to an
irregularity and the effect of the same on the main case depends
upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course, in
such a situation, the court has to consider whether any prejudice
has been caused to the accused and also examine the evidence in
respect of search in the light of the fact that these provisions
have not been complied with and further consider whether the
weight of evidence is in any manner affected because of the non-
compliance. It is well-settled that the testimony of a witness is
not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he
happens to be an official but as a rule of caution and depending
upon the circumstances of the case, the courts look for
independent corroboration. This again depends on question
whether the official has deliberately failed to comply with these
provisions or failure was due to lack of time and opportunity to
associate some independent witnesses with the search and
strictly comply with these provisions.” [Emphasis supplied]
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JYOTI NAINState Vs. Satender @ Bona FIR No. 2/2013 PS Swaroop Nagar 10 of 13 Date:
NAIN 2026.02.18
19:03:05
+0530
20. Considering the aforesaid observations made by the Higher Courts, the
omissions / failure on the part of investigating agency to join independent public
witnesses create reasonable doubt in the prosecution story.
21. None of the recovery witnesses in their examination-in-chief have stated that
they offered their personal search to accused before inspecting the country-made
pistol and 1 magazine consisting of 4 live cartridges carried by the accused.
Principles of natural justice demanded that accused should have been offered
search by recovery witness who allegedly recovered case property from accused
and should have reduced this fact into writing which has not been done in present
case and which fact diminishes credibility of prosecution version. Reliance being
placed on a judgment of Hon’ble Orissa High Court reported as “Rabindernath
Prusty Vs. State of Orissa“. In this situation, it can be said that search of the
accused by above said police officials was in complete violation of the above said
case law and the same can be said to be illegal & motivated.
22. From the aforesaid discussion, it is very clear that the manner in which the
inquiry, seizure and search etc. has been conducted on the spot at the time of
alleged recovery of weapon, it makes the prosecution version highly doubtful. In a
criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused
beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in
favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from
may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks
credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
23. The Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. provided that ” before making a search of the
officer or other person about to make it shall call upon the two or more
independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be
searched is situated or any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is
Digitally
State Vs. Satender @ Bona FIR No. 2/2013 PS Swaroop Nagar 11 of 13 signed by
JYOTI JYOTI NAIN
Date:
NAIN 2026.02.18
19:03:09
+0530
available or is willing to be a witness of the search, to attend the witness the search
and may issued an order in writing to them or any of them so to do”.
24. In the present case, the IO has even failed to note down the particulars of the
person who refused to join the investigation and this creates doubt regarding the
fairness of the investigation. The chances of false implication cannot be ruled out.
25. PW4 i.e. IO SI Jagdeep categorically stated in his examination in chief that,
he did not prepare handing over memo of the seal .
26. In these circumstances, the possibility of tampering of case property cannot
be ruled out. Reliance is placed on “Ramji Singh V/s State of Haryana” 2007 (3)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 452, Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that : –
7. “The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person
is to avoid tampering of the case property. It is well settled
that till the case property is not dispatched to the forensic
science laboratory, the seal should not be available to the
prosecuting agency and in the absence of such a safeguard the
possibility of seal, contraband and the samples being
tampered with cannot be ruled out”.
27. Similarly, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in “Safiullah v. State“, 1993 (1)
RCR (Criminal) 622, held that :-
“10. The seals after use were kept by the police officials
themselves. Therefore the possibility of tampering with
the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It
was very essential for the prosecution to have established
from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not
tampered with. Once a doubt is created in the preservation
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JYOTI NAINState Vs. Satender @ Bona FIR No. 2/2013 PS Swaroop Nagar 12 of 13 Date:
NAIN 2026.02.18
19:03:14
+0530
of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the
accused.”
28. Further, Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, provides that the
hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police
officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a
statement of the nature of their duty shall be entered vide a separate entry and this
entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer
concerned and shall be attested by the latter personality by signature or seal. In the
present case, complete departure or the arrival entries have not been proved on the
record by the prosecution. In absence of such proof, the presence of the police
officials at the spot cannot be believed. Reference can be made to on “Rattan Lal Vs.
State 1987 (2) Crimes 29″.
29. All the lapses in investigation create doubt on the very recovery of a
countrymade pistol from the possession of the accused. The Court is of the
considered view that prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of accused
beyond reasonable doubt.
30. In view of the above discussion, the Court is of the view that prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and in the absence of any cogent
evidence against accused Satender @ Bona is hereby acquitted for offence under
section 25 Arms Act. Case property be confiscated to the state as per rules and the
same be destroyed.
31. File be consigned to Record Room.
32. This Judgment consists of 13 pages and all pages bear my signature.
Digitally signed
JYOTI by JYOTI NAIN
Date:
Announced and dictated directly
NAIN 2026.02.18
19:03:18 +0530
into the computer in open court (JYOTI NAIN)
on 18th Day of February 2026 JMFC-07/North District
Rohini Courts, Delhi
State Vs. Satender @ Bona FIR No. 2/2013 PS Swaroop Nagar 13 of 13
