Disposed

Sami Siddiqui v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2025CRLR/103/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against a Section 319 Cr.P.C. summons issued to the revisionist in a murder trial on the basis of his presence at the spot alone. The High Court found prima facie no connecting evidence, issued notice to opposite party no. 2, and stayed operation of the impugned summoning order till the next listing.

What did the court decide?

Operation of the impugned Section 319 Cr.P.C. summoning order dated 16.10.2024 stayed till next date of listing; notice issued.

Sami Siddiqui vs State of U.P. and Another — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 103 of 2025

¶3

Revisionist :- Sami Siddiqui Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Prashant Vardhan,Ramesh Chandra Yadav

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The instant revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Moradabad in Session Trial No. 32 of 2019 (State Vs. Rosi @ Moin Khan) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. revisionist has been summoned to face trial for offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the trial court, merely on the basis of some evidence regarding the presence of the revisionist on the spot, had summoned him to face the trial, though there is no evidence regarding the involvement of the revisionist in the alleged crime in any manner, whatsoever.

¶9

It has further been argued that except the presence of the revisionist on the spot, no other evidence, i.e. if the revisionist was part of the conspiracy in the alleged murder or there was some common intention for the alleged murder, is available on record.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has brought to the notice of this Court the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 and has submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court, in categorical terms, had held that prima-facie satisfaction of the trial court is not sufficient for summoning a person as accused and for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the trial court should be of the view that there is sufficient evidence on record to reach out the conclusion of the conviction but in the present case except the evidence of presence of the revisionist on the spot, there is no other connecting evidence therefore, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain in the eyes of law.

¶11

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and prima-facie, I find that except the presence of the revisionist on the spot there is no other evidence connecting the revisionist with the crime in question.

¶12

Matter requires consideration.

¶13

Issue notice to Opposite Party No. 2 returnable within six weeks.

¶14

List this matter on 24.2.2025.

¶15

Till the next date of listing, the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Moradabad in Session Trial No. 32 of 2019 (State Vs. Rosi @ Moin Khan), shall remain stayed.

¶16

Order Date :- 9.1.2025 Gaurav

¶17

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sami Siddiqui v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sami Siddiqui 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Patel and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Pal vs State of U.P. and Another

Anu Yadav vs Rajeev Krishna, the Chairman of Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Baord, Tulsi Ganga C

Committee of Management Hindu Mahila Intercollege Prayagraj vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahendra Valmiki vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another