Disposed

Rajesh Maurya v. Additional Session Judge/Ftc District and Session Court, District Varanasi and Another

Allahabad HC28 Sept 2018A227/7269/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 227, the petitioner sought a direction to the lower court to summon CCTV footage from Bank of Baroda regarding an incident in a criminal case. The High Court disposed of the petition by directing the lower court to order the bank to produce the footage.

What did the court decide?

Directed Additional Session Judge/FTC Court No.1 to direct Bank of Baroda Branch Manager Malad (East) to provide CCTV footage dated 10.11.2016 within fifteen days.

Rajesh Maurya Vs Additional Session Judge/Ftc… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7269 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajesh Maurya Respondent :- Additional Session Judge/Ftc District And Session Court, District Varanasi And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Keshri,Hemant Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

The instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking direction to the court below to decide the application dated 22.3.2018 moved by the petitioner, whereby a request for summoning the CCTV Footage dated 10.11.2016 from Bank of Baroda, Branch Malad (East), Mumbai in S.T. No. 51 of 2017 (State Vs. Suresh Maurya and others) under section 498-A, 304-B, 323, 326 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, pending in the court of Additional Session Judge/FTC Court No.1, District & Session Court, District Varanasi.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in respect of incident dated 10.11.2016 an FIR has been registered under sections 498A, 304B, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Phoolpur , District Varanasi. After investigation charge-sheet has also been submitted in the matter on 22.01.2017 against the petitioner and his wife. He further submitted that petitioner is living separately with his wife at Shivaji Nagar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra since 2009. It is also submitted that on the date of incident i.e. 10. 11.2016 petitioner and his were very much present at Mumbai.

¶7

Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the presence of petitioner on 10.11.2016 at Bank of Baroda, Branch Malad East Mumbai can be verified from CCTV Footage of the bank concerned. The petitioner requested the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Branch Malad East Mumbai to provide CCTV Footage dated 10.11.2016 but the same was denied, hence this petition for issuing direction.

¶8

Learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of with direction to Additional Session Judge/FTC Court No.1, District & Session Court, District Varanasi to direct the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Branch Malad (East), Mumbai to provide CCTV Footage dated 10.11.2016 within fifteen days from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it.

¶10

With the aforesaid directions the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶11

Order Date :- 28.9.2018 Prajapati

¶12

[Chandra Dhari Singh, J]

Rajesh Maurya v. Additional Session Judge/Ftc District and Session Court, District Varanasi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Maurya v. Additional Session Judge/Ftc District and Session Court, District Varanasi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alamgir and 7 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Faisal Ali Vs State of Up and Another

Sunil Rajpoot and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Ramu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shishupal Balmiki Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ashok Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another