Dismissed¶¶12

Ajay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2025A482/3961/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ajay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and another; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:37621; APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 3961 of 2025; Order Date 3.7.2025; Subhash Vidyarthi, J.; S. 482 Cr.P.C. challenge to rejection of S. 311 Cr.P.C. application recalling PW-9 (retired Sub-Inspector) for cross-examination; Session Trial No. 39 of 2008, Raibareli; counsel absent on date of examination-in-chief; expeditious disposal action plan; application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

There is no illegality or irregularity in the reasons assigned by the trial Court while passing the order dated 18.04.2025 rejecting the Section 311 Cr.P.C. recall application. ¶¶11

Ajay Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37621

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3961 of 2025 Applicant :- Ajay Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sukh Deo Singh,Paritosh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Suresh Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Arun Kumar Verma, the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

By means of the order dated 14.05.2025, this Court had ordered issuance of notice to the opposite party No.2. The office has reported that as per the report of C.J.M., Raibareli, notice stands served on the opposite party No.2-Sri Chandra Kesh Singh had expired on 19.04.2016 and the notice has been served on his wife but no body has put in appearance to oppose the application.

¶7

However, in these circumstances, this Court proceeds to consider the application on its merits.

¶8

By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has challenged validity of an order dated 18.04.2025 passed by the First Additional Session Judge, Raibareli in Session Trial No.39 of 2008 whereby an application filed by the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling PW-9 for cross-examination has been rejected.

¶9

PW-9 is a retired Sub-Inspector of Police and his examination-inchief was conducted on 05.04.2025. Applicant's counsel was not present in the court on that date and the applicant was present and he sought an adjournment so as to enable him to get PW-9 crossexamined through his counsel. This application was rejected by the trial Court.

¶10

On 14.04.2025, the applicant filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling PW-9 so as to enable the applicant to crossexamine him. While rejecting this application, the trial Court on has recorded in the impugned order dated 18.04.2025 that although the accused persons had prior knowledge that statement of PW-9 would be recorded on 05.04.2025, no persons was present to cross-examine PW-9 and no application for adjournment was filed on their behalf. Co-accused Sanjay Pratap Singh was present before the Court but the applicant was not present before the trial Court. The trial Court further observed that the trial is pending since the year 2008 and it is one of the cases covered by the action plan prepared by the High Court regarding which the Hon'ble High Court has issued direction for expeditious disposal. The trial Court has also recorded that the accused persons have sought an opportunity to cross-examine PW-9 on the ground that their counsel comes from another district. The trial Court had expressed the view that the accused persons are free to engage an Advocate of their choice but they are responsible to ensure presence of their counsel for participation in the proceedings.

¶11

Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find no illegality and irregularity in the aforesaid reasons assigned by the trial Court while passing the order dated 18.04.2025.

¶12

In absence of any illegality in the aforesaid order, I am of the view that the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed .

¶13

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 3.7.2025/-Amit K-

¶15

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

Ajay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Satya Narayan Agarwal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sudhesh Dwivedi (Sudhesh Kumar Dwivedi) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Ashutosh Kumar Dubey and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Rajesh Singh and Ors. Vs the State of U.P and Ors.

Adrash Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Laxmi @ Advocate Laxmi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another