Dismissed

Bablu @ Vishnu Dhar Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2023A482/39132/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenges the rejection of a subsequent Section 91 Cr.P.C. petition for summoning documents. The court found the petition misconceived due to prior rejection of similar petitions by the trial court, High Court, and Supreme Court.

What did the court decide?

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the rejection of the Section 91 Cr.P.C. petition was dismissed.

Bablu @ Vishnu Dhar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39132 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Bablu @ Vishnu Dhar Dubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Rashid Siddiqui,Abhinav Gaur,Ankit Shukla,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Prakash Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Anoop Trivedi, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Mr. Vibhu Rai, the learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Chandra
Prakash Pandey, the learned counsel representing first
informant/opposite party no.2.

¶6

This application under Section 482 has been filed challenging the
order dated 15.11.2022 passed by Additional District & Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No.1,
District Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial No.19 of 2015, State V.
Govind Yadav and others, arising out of Case Crime No.463 of
2014 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 386, 396 & 504 IPC,
Police Station Khorabad, District Gorakhpur, whereby the
Application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. (Paper No.178 Ka) filed by
applicant for summoning certain documents has been rejected.

¶7

At the very outset, the learned AGA and Mr. Chandra Prakash
Pandey, the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite
party no.2 have raised a preliminary objection with regard to the
maintainability of the Application No.178 Kha itself before court
below. They submits that applicant had earlier filed an Application,
i.e., Paper No.107 Kha, photocopy of which is on record at page 69
of the paper book.

¶8

By means of the said application, applicant had prayed for

¶9

summoning of one Ashok Jain and also the papers collected by
him during the course of investigation. However, the said
application was rejected by court below vide order dated
22.07.2019.

¶10

Feeling aggrieved by the said order, applicant approached this
Court by means of Application u/s 482 No.29899 of 2019
(Vishnu Dhar Dubey @ Babloo Dubey v. State of U.P. and
Another).

¶11

Aforesaid application also came to be partly allowed vide order
dated 13.08.2019. The effect of the same was that the order of the
trial court dated 22.07.2019 was upheld. The order of the High
Court dated 13.08.2019 was challenged before the Supreme Court.
However, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

¶12

Subsequently, applicant file another application (paper no.178
Kha) dated 14.10.2022 before the court below praying therein that
the papers collected by Senior Superintendent of Police,
Gorakhpur, namely, Mr. Ashok Jain be summoned.

¶13

This application filed by applicant again came to be rejected by
court below by means of order dated 5.11.2022. It is this order
which has been impugned in present application.

¶14

At the very outset, learned AGA and Mr. Chandra Prakash Pandey,
the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party no.2
submits that in view of the earlier order dated 22.07.2019 passed
by trial court as well as order dated 13.08.2019 passed by the High
Court and the order dated 13.09.2019 passed by the Apex Court in
Special Leave to Appeal Criminal No.8044 of 2019 (Vishnu Dhar

¶15

Dubey @ Babloo Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another), the
subsequent application (paper no.1078 kha) dated 14.10.2022 was
wholly misconceived. As such no illegality has been committed by
the court below in rejecting the said application.

¶16

When confronted with above, the learned Senior Counsel for
applicant could not over come the same.

¶17

As a result, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

It is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶19

Order Date :- 2.2.2023 A.N. Mishra

¶20

Digitally signed by :- AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bablu @ Vishnu Dhar Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu @ Vishnu Dhar Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Kumar @ Ravindra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bindra Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vishnu Jaiswal @ Guddu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Paras Nath Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aniruddha Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another