Rama Shanker Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76821

Court No. - 70

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16398 of 2025

Applicant :- Rama Shanker Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Verma, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

Applicant-Rama Shanker Pandey, who is a named as well as charge sheeted accused and is facing trial before court below has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 528 BNSS challenging the order dated 22.04.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No. 93 of 2022 (State Vs. Ashish Pandey) arising out of Case Crime Noi. 272 of 2021 under Section 302 IPC, Police StationSikrana, District-Jaunpur whereby the application dated 07.02.2025 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (paper no. 25 Kha) duly supported by an affidavit (paper no. 26 Kha) filed by applicant for recall of P.W.-1 has been rejected by court below.

¶9

At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits that perusal of the order impugned will go to show that court below has rejected aforementioned application filed by accused/applicant primarily on the ground that applicant had filed a similar application, which was registered as Paper No. 12 Kha, for recall of P.W.-1. The same was rejected by court below vide order dated 30.01.2025. However, the

¶10

factum with regard to filing of earlier application and its rejection vide order dated 30.01.2025 has not been disclosed in the subsequent application dated 07.02.2025 filed by accused/applicant before court below. He therefore submits that material fact was concealed by accused/applicant. Referring to the judgement of Supreme Court in Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. S. K. ROy (1974) 4 SCC 230 , the learned A.G.A. submits that second application shall be maintainable provided new fact has emerged on record. He has then referred to the affidavit filed in support of this application and on basis thereof, he contends that there is no such averment in the affidavit filed in support of this application on the basis of which, it can be conclusively inferred that on account of certain circumstances/facts, which have arisen subsequent to the order dated 30.01.2025, the application dated 07.02.2025 could be held to be maintainable. He therefore submits that no illegality has been committed by court below in passing the order impugned. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application.

¶11

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned AG.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record that court finds that the preliminary objection raised by the learned A.G.A in opposition to this application is clearly borne out from the record and furthermore, the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage. As such, no good ground now exits to entertain the present application.

¶13

In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be

¶14

dismissed.

¶15

It is accordingly dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 12.5.2025 YK

¶17

Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rama Shanker Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Shanker Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajni vs State of U.P. and Another

Moti Lal Prajapati vs State of U.P. and Another

Waris and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Umesh Alias Vikash Teli vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahid Khan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashish Mani Tripathi vs State of U.P. and Another