Divigvijay Bharti Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Divigvijay Bharti Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim protection from arrest for 30 days to enable the applicant to move an appropriate application (NBW recall or bail) before the trial court; trial court requested to consider his absence sympathetically. The quashing prayer itself was not adjudicated, counsel having confined his argument to seeking protection.

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet no.143A of 2013 dated 28.08.2016, the entire proceedings of Case No.10137 of 2012 (State Vs. Ram Preet and others) under Sections 363, 366, 506, 376D, 342, 323, 504 I.P.C., and the cognizance dated 08.09.2017 should be quashed. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The applicant shall not be arrested for 30 days from the date of the order, during which period he may move an appropriate application before the trial court.

Key takeaways

The trial court is requested to consider that the accused had been granted protection during investigation and was not aware of the pendency of trial, to consider the reason for his absence, and to pass an order sympathetically so that he appears before the court to face trial.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Avnish Saxena, J.) disposed of an application under Section 528 BNSS by Divigvijay Bharti seeking quashing of charge sheet no.143A of 2013 (dated 28.08.2016), the entire proceedings of Case No.10137 of 2012 (State Vs. Ram Preet and others) under Sections 363, 366, 506, 376D, 342, 323, 504 I.P.C. (Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur) and the cognizance dated 08.09.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1, Gorakhpur. The application was moved by the accused-applicant after 12 years from submission of the charge sheet; counsel confined the argument to seeking protection to appear before the trial court as the applicant apprehended arrest, being unaware of the pendency of trial. The Court directed that the applicant not be arrested for 30 days, within which he may move an appropriate application (NBW recall or bail) before the trial court, and requested the trial court to consider the reason for his absence and pass an order sympathetically. The merits of the quashing prayer were not adjudicated.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39135 of 2025

Divigvijay Bharti

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Kamlesh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

Court No. - 81

HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

Heard Sri Kamlesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The instant application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been moved with a prayer to quash the charge sheet no.143A of 2013 dated 28.08.2016 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.10137 of 2012 (State Vs. Ram Preet and others), under Sections 363, 366, 506, 376D, 342, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur as well as cognizance dated 08.09.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1, Gorakhpur.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been moved by the accused-applicant after 12 years from the date of submission of charge sheet. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is confined to seeking of protection to appear before the trial court, as the accused is apprehending arrest in the matter, who was not knowing about the pendency of the trial and got the processes at a later date.

Learned AGA accepts the notice for the State.

There is no point of issuing notice upon opposite party no.2.

At this juncture, learned counsel prayed that the interest of the applicant may be protected till he files the NBW recall application or bail application as the case may be.

NA528 No. 39135 of 2025

2

The applicant may not be arrested for 30 days from today during which period the applicant may move appropriate application before the trial court.

Request is made to the trial court to consider that the accused was granted protection during the investigation and was not aware of the pendency of trial. The trial court further to consider the reason for his absence and pass an order sympathetically, considering that the applicant on being aware of the case appear before the court to face trial.

The application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly disposed of .

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

October 15, 2025 Shivangi

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