Kehar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC29 May 2024A482/4959/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant challenged a summoning order passed under section 319 CrPC in a murder trial, arguing the court below ignored scientific evidence showing his presence at Hardwar. The court found the matter required consideration, issued notice to respondent no. 2, and stayed the impugned order pending adjudication while allowing the trial to continue.

What did the court decide?

Impugned summoning order dated 25.4.2024 stayed till further orders; notice ordered to respondent No. 2.

Kehar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4959 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Kehar Singh

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajat Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1.The petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing summoning order dated 25.4.2024 in S.T. No.1542 of 2021 case crime No.404 of 2020 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307/34, 323/34, 302/34 I.P.C., P.S. Pali, district Hardoi (State versus Vijay Singh and others) passed on the application under section 319 CrPC.

¶7

2.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during investigation, ample scientific evidence was collected by the investigating officer which showed presence of the petitioner at Hardwar. However, the court below has summoned the petitioner only on the basis of statement of P.W. 1 and P.W.2. It is submitted that pithora of evidence collected by the investigating officer during course of investigation has not even been considered while passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed mechanically. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on judgment of Supreme Court in Brijendra Singh and others versus State of Rajasthan AIR 2017 SC 2839.

¶9

4.Considering the argument advanced, perusal of

¶10

the record as also the judgment referred to above, I find that the matter requires consideration.

¶11

5.Issue notice to respondent No.2.

¶12

Four weeks' time is allowed to file counter affidavit, two weeks then for the rejoinder.

¶13

6.List on 11.7.2024.

¶14

7.Till further orders of the court, the impugned order dated 25.4.2024 (supra) shall remain stayed. However, the trial shall go on.

¶15

Order Date :- 29.5.2024 kkb/

¶16

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kehar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kehar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Uma Pandey Vs Dr. Indramani Tripathi, Vice Chairman Lko. Development Authority, Lko.

Jaman Singh Mehra and Another Vs Mr. Alok Kumar Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Deptt. Lko. and Another

Tejveer Singh Vs Shri Sanjay Singhal, Addl. Director General of Police Establishment, U.P. Lko.

Vashram vs Ranvijay Pratap Singh and 4 Others

Masooq Ali @ Raju vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sakir Ali @ Guddu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another