Pradyuman Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2025NA528/35461/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Video conferencing for trial of accused; Application under Section 528 BNSS; Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020; reliance on Smt. Sunita Devi v. State of U.P. and another, Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 282 of 2021, order dated 02.08.2022; Articles 225 and 227 Constitution of India; disposal with liberty/direction to accused-applicant to approach trial court; Pradyuman Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Avnish Saxena, J.; decided October 14, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction/liberty to the accused-applicant to move an application before the trial court seeking trial through video conferencing, to be considered in the light of the judgment in Smt. Sunita Devi; notice to opposite party no. 2 dispensed with. ¶¶15

Pradyuman Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-applicant can be tried through video conferencing under the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020.

¶¶7

Court's answer

The application is disposed of with the direction that the accused-applicant, who has not moved any application before the trial court, may move an application before the trial court for consideration in the light of the coordinate Bench judgment in Smt. Sunita Devi (Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 282 of 2021, order dated 02.08.2022).

¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Avnish Saxena, J.) disposed of an application under Section 528 BNSS (Pradyuman Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another) in which the sole prayer was that the accused be tried through video conferencing. Learned counsel relied on the coordinate Bench decision in Smt. Sunita Devi v. State of U.P. and another, Transfer Application (Criminal) No. 282 of 2021, decided by order dated 02.08.2022, wherein paragraphs 11 and 12 record that the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020 — notified under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution — address litigants' concerns of distance and threat perception, and direct all courts to act in aid of those Rules, obliging the court concerned to pass an appropriate order on any application under the Rules at the earliest. The learned A.G.A. accepted notice for the State, and the Court found no point in issuing notice to opposite party no. 2. Disposing of the application, the Court directed that the accused-applicant, who had not yet moved any application before the trial court, may move such an application before the trial court for consideration in the light of the said judgment.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35461 of 2025

¶3

Pradyuman Yadav

¶4

		.....Ap	plicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		....	.Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ashok Yadav, Srivastava	Hemant	Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 81

¶5

HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

¶6

Heard Sri Hemant Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the innocuous prayer has been made in the present application is for getting the matter of accused tried through video conferencing. The learned counsel has relied on the case of Smt. Sunita Devi Vs. State of U.P. and another , whereby the coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding the Transfer Application (Criminal) No.282 of 2021 by order dated 02.08.2022 has directed in paragraph nos.11 and 12 that the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020 permits so. The relevant paragraphs is reiterated underneath:-

¶8

"11. The Rules of 2020 effectively address the concern of the litigants including the distance factor and threat perception. Once the Rules of 2020 have been notified in exercise of powers under Article 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for providing video conferencing to the litigant in the Courts and such an alternative channel will be able to address the concerns of the litigant as has been raised in the present transfer application. No ground for transfer of the case from one district to another is made out in view of the observations made hereinabove.

¶9

12. Under the circumstances, the present transfer application is disposed of with the liberty to the applicant to apply under Rules for Video Conferencing

¶10

NA528 No. 35461 of 2025

¶11

¶12

for Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020 for video conference facility in judicial proceedings. It is hereby provided that in case any application is preferred by the applicant under the aforesaid Rules, the court/authority concerned shall be obliged under law to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law at the earliest. It is hereby directed that all courts and authorities shall act in aid of the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020."

¶13

Learned A.G.A. accepts notice for the State.

¶14

There is no point in issuing notice to opposite party no.2.

¶15

The application is disposed of with the direction that the accusedapplicant, who has not moved any application before the trial court may move the application before the trial court for consideration in the light of the judgment.

¶16

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

¶17

October 14, 2025 Shivangi

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradyuman Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradyuman Yadav 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases