CRL.M.C. 6134/2026 1 $~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010389222026 + CRL.M.C. 6134/2026 & CRL.M.A. 25652/2026 OMA SALAM @ O M ABDUL SALAM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Mohan, Mr. Swapnil Krishna, Mr. Shaikh Saipan D. and Mr. Chandveer S., Advocates. versus NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, SPP(NIA), Mr. Vikas Walia, ASPP(NIA), Mr. Jatin, ASPP, NIA, Ms. Divya Garg, Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Avinash Kumar Singh and Mr. Priyansh Raj Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN O R D E R % 17.09.2026 1. The point involved in the present petition is a very short one. 2. The police had registered FIR No. RC-14/2022/NIA/DLI on 13.04.2022. 3. Charge-sheet has already been filed and charges have also been framed. When the case was put to trial, an application was filed by the petitioner herein (accused No.1 before the learned Trial Court) praying therein, that before examining any other witness, the prosecution may be requested to examine the concerned Sanctioning Authority. 4. Learned Trial Court referred to Section 135 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and after hearing learned counsel for the both the parties, while dismissing the abovesaid application filed by the petitioner herein, also did observe that the prosecution shall consider bringing sanction witness, at the earliest. 5. Mr. Rajiv Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the This is a digitally signed order. 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 19/09/2026 at 11:12:37 CRL.M.C. 6134/2026 2 dismissal of the abovesaid application, the prosecution has already started examining a protected witness and there are, 22 accused persons, in all and he submits that he would have no objection if the witness related to the sanction in question is produced before the learned Trial Court after the cross-examination of the abovesaid witness is concluded by all the accused persons. 6. Undoubtedly, the witnesses, in terms of section 135 of Indian Evidence Act are required to be produced and examined as per the discretion exercised by the Court. 7. It is also, absolutely, clear that, normally speaking, defence has no right in this regard and it is the prerogative of the prosecution as to whom it chooses to examine first. 8. Fact, however, remains that since the learned Trial Court has, itself, observed that prosecution would consider bringing such witnesses related to grant of sanction at the earliest, the present petition is disposed of with the request to prosecution to examine the concerned witnesses related to sanction in question, once the testimony of ongoing witness is completed and concluded. 9. It is, however, clarified that the abovesaid order has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the observations made by the learned Trial Court itself and shall not be taken as precedent. 10. The present petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. 11. Pending application also stands disposed of. MANOJ JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2026/ss/sa This is a digitally signed order. 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 19/09/2026 at 11:12:37