Dismissed¶16

Neelesh Tiwari @ Neeleshwar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Oct 2025CRLR/6737/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Criminal revision CRLR 6737 of 2025; Allahabad High Court; Abdul Shahid, J.; decided 29.10.2025; Section 94 BNSS/B.N.S.S. 2023 application; summons of CDR / call detail record of mobile No. 9005942232; plea of alibi at trial stage before framing of charge; efficacious remedy at defence-evidence stage; application filed to delay trial; FIR No. 0285 of 2024, P.S. Mahrauni, District Lalitpur; B.N.S.-2023 sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 118(1), 333, 109; Session Case No. 67/2025; Additional District and Session Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Lalitpur; impugned order dated 24.09.2025 upheld; revision dismissed; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

None; the revision was dismissed and the impugned order dated 24.09.2025 rejecting the Section 94 B.N.S.S.2023 application stands. ¶16

Neelesh Tiwari @ Neeleshwar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the revision was dismissed and the impugned order dated 24.09.2025 rejecting the Section 94 B.N.S.S.2023 application stands.

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court's rejection of the revisionist's application under Section 94 B.N.S.S.2023 for summoning the CDR of his mobile number (to substantiate his plea of alibi) was vitiated by illegality or irregularity so as to call for interference in criminal revision.

¶16

Court's answer

With the charge not yet framed, the plea of alibi could be taken at the stage of the trial; the revisionist had an efficacious remedy to move such an application at the stage of the defence evidence, and the present application was filed to cause delay in the trial.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order of the Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lalitpur rejecting the Section 94 B.N.S.S. application, and the criminal revision is therefore dismissed.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Abdul Shahid, J.), Criminal Revision No. 6737 of 2025, decided 29 October 2025: dismissed the revision challenging the order dated 24.09.2025 of the Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lalitpur in Session Case No. 67/2025 (State vs. Neelesh Tiwari and others), arising out of FIR No. 0285 of 2024, P.S. Mahrauni, District Lalitpur (offences under sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 118(1), 333, 109 B.N.S.-2023), whereby the trial court had rejected Paper No. 7-Kha filed by the revisionist-accused under Section 94 B.N.S.S.2023 seeking summons of the CDR of his mobile No. 9005942232 to show he was not present at the incident of 8.9.2024 at 10:30 a.m. Held: since the charge was still not framed, the plea of alibi could be taken at the stage of the trial, and the revisionist had an efficacious remedy at the stage of the defence evidence; the application was filed to cause delay in the trial. Finding no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the revision.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6737 of 2025

¶3

Neelesh Tiwari @ Neeleshwar Tiwari

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Devendra Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 91

¶8

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

¶10

Under challenge is the impugned order dated passed by the 24.09.2025 Additional District and Session Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lalitpur rejecting Paper No. 7-Kha filed by revisionist under Section 94 B.N.S.S.2023, in Session Case No. 67/2025, (State vs. Neelesh Tiwari and others) arising out of FIR No. 0285 of 2024, under sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 118(1), 333, 109 B.N.S.-2023 registered at Police Station-Mahrauni, District Lalitpur.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist was not present at the time of the alleged incident on 8.9.2024 at 10:30 a.m. It is further submitted that the revisionist was having a Mobile No. 9005942232 and requested to the court under Section 94 of B.N.S.S. that CDR of that mobile be summoned.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision and contended that plea of alibi could be taken at the stage of trial.

¶13

The FIR was registered on the same day of the incident i.e. 8.9.2024 at 13:49 hours at the concerned police station. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed. Learned trial court has specifically mentioned in the impugned order dated 24.9.2025 that the trial be commenced after framing of the charge against the accused persons. The accused is having all legal remedies to move present application at the time of the defence evidence. Present application has been filed to cause the delay in the trial. The plea of alibi could be taken at the stage of the trial as the charge is still not framed. The revisionist is having efficacious remedy at the stage of the defence evidence, if any.

¶14

CRLR No. 6737 of 2025

¶15

¶16

In view of the above, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The revision is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly, dismissed .

¶17

October 29, 2025 M. Tarik

¶18

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Neelesh Tiwari @ Neeleshwar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelesh Tiwari @ Neeleshwar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases