Dismissed¶¶15

Vinay Sharma @ Nawab and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2025A482/32782/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Rajeev Misra, J.; order dated 3.1.2025; Application U/S 482 No. 32782 of 2024; Vinay Sharma @ Nawab v. State of U.P.; maintainability of Section 482 Cr.P.C. application; Section 91 Cr.P.C. only at stage of defence evidence; State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568; CDR of witness Punita Singh and Brijesh Kumar Singh; DVR/CCTV footage; Sessions Trial No. 227 of 2019; Case Crime No. 07 of 2019; sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B IPC; section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act; P.S. Chandwak, District Jaunpur; application dismissed as not pressed with liberty to renew at defence evidence stage.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to applicant to move another application similar to the application dated 04.05.2022 under Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the stage of defence evidence. ¶¶15

Vinay Sharma @ Nawab and Another vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to applicant to move another application similar to the application dated 04.05.2022 under Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the stage of defence evidence.

¶¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking a direction to the Additional Sessions Judge, First, District Jaunpur to decide the applicants' pending application dated 04.05.2022 for collection/production of CDRs of Punita Singh and Brijesh Kumar Singh and of DVR/CCTV footage, is maintainable at this stage of the sessions trial, before the stage of defence evidence has emerged.

¶¶12

Court's answer

The application is dismissed as not pressed at this stage, with liberty to the applicant to move another application similar to that dated 04.05.2022 under Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the stage of defence evidence.

¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Rajeev Misra, J.), Order dated 3.1.2025 — Application U/S 482 No. 32782 of 2024, Vinay Sharma @ Nawab and another v. State of U.P. Charge-sheeted accused in Sessions Trial No. 227 of 2019 (State v. Umashankar @ DI and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 07 of 2019 for offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B I.P.C. and section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Chandwak, District Jaunpur, sought by way of a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application a direction to the Additional Sessions Judge, First, District Jaunpur to decide their pending application dated 04.05.2022 requesting collection, reservation and production of CDRs of witness Punita Singh and of Brijesh Kumar Singh, and of DVR/CCTV footage installed at the applicants' house covering the alleged incident time (about 18:45 hrs on 09.01.2019). The learned A.G.A. raised a preliminary objection on maintainability, invoking the three-Judge Bench pronouncement in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, that an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. by an accused lies only at the stage of defence evidence; confronted with this, learned counsel for the applicants sought leave to withdraw, to which the A.G.A. had no objection. The Court accordingly dismissed the application as not pressed at this stage, with liberty to file a similar Section 91 Cr.P.C. application at the stage of defence evidence.

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32782 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Vinay Sharma @ Nawab And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for applicants in Court today, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

Applicants- Vinay Sharma @ Nawab And Another who are charge sheeted accused, have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:-

¶9

"It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously he pleased to allow this application and direct the court of Additional Session Judge, First, District Jaunpur in Session Trial No. 227 of 2019 (State Vs. Umashankar @ DI and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 07 of 2019 for the offence under section 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B I.P.C. and section 7 criminal Law Amendment Act, at police station Chandwak, District-Jaunpur to decide the application dated 04.05.2022 filed by the applicant with a request to collect, reserve and produce the CDR of the witness namely Punita Singh and one of the master mind of this case namely Brijesh Kumar Singh during the period of the alleged date and time of the incident and also with a request to direct the concerned Police authorities to collect the D.V.R as well as the C.C.T.V footage during the period of the alleged date and time of the incident i.e. nearby at 18.45 hrs on 09.01.2019, installed at the house of the applicants, as the same may be produce before this Hon'ble court and taken into consideration during trial.

¶10

It is also prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to direct the concerned police authorities to collect, reserve and produce the CDR of the witness namely Punita

¶11

Singh and one of the master mind of this case namely Brijesh Kumar Singh during the period of the alleged date and time of the incident and also direct the concerned Police authorities to collect the D.V.R as well as the C.C.T.V footage during the period of the alleged date and time of the incident i.e. nearby at 18.45 hrs on 09.01.2019, installed at the house of the applicants as the same may be produce before this Hon'ble Court and taken into consideration during trial, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

¶12

At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of present application. He submits that in view of the categorical pronouncement by the Apex Court in three Judges Bench judgment in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 , an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. can be filed by an accused only at the stage of defence evidence. Since the stage of defence evidence has not yet emerged in the criminal case pending against applicants before Court below, therefore, the application dated 04.05.2022 filed by applicants to summon the documents mentioned in aforementioned application is misconceived at this stage. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application.

¶13

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicants fairly submits that he be permitted to withdraw the present application.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for applicants.

¶15

In view of above, this application is accordingly, dismissed as not pressed at this stage with liberty to applicant to move another application similar to the application dated 04.05.2022 under Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the stage of defence evidence.

¶16

Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Imtiyaz

¶17

Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinay Sharma @ Nawab and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Sharma @ Nawab and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raunak Singh vs State of Up and Another

Akshay Kumar and 12 Others vs State of Up and Another

Pradeep Kumar Singh vs State of Up and 2 Others

Gajram and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Satya Prakash vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bablu Alias Satish Singh vs State of U.P. and Another