Dismissed¶13

Arvind Kashyap v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2025NA528/5379/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Arvind Kashyap; Section 528 BNSS application; direction to serve summons to witnesses; court witnesses; Section 311 Cr.P.C. application allowed 02.12.2024; Case Crime No. 348/2013; S.T. No. 20/2023 (State Vs. Arvind Kashyap); Sections 147, 302, 120-B IPC; 7 C.L.A. Act; Police Station Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh; Special Judge Gangster Court Azamgarh; CBI as opposite party no.2; accused in jail without bail application; criminal history; no abuse of process; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Court No. 78; Samit Gopal, J.; order dated 20.2.2025; application rejected; neutral citation 2025:AHC:25012.

What did the court decide?

The prayer in the application does not disclose any misuse of the process of court. ¶12

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, in custody and facing trial in S.T. No. 20/2023 (Case Crime No. 348/2013), is entitled to a High Court direction under Section 528 BNSS that summons be served on the witnesses and they be produced before the trial court within a stipulated period so that their evidence is recorded as court witnesses. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

The applicant admitted that he had not applied for bail in the present case, and his counsel stated that this was because the applicant has a criminal history of many cases; the trial court had already allowed his Section 311 Cr.P.C. application and issued summons to the witnesses.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The prayer in the application does not disclose any misuse of the process of court.

¶12

Key takeaways

There is no ground for interference in the matter and the application under Section 528 BNSS is rejected.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Samit Gopal, J.), Order dated 20.2.2025 — Application under Section 528 BNSS No. 5379 of 2025 by Arvind Kashyap, an accused in custody, against the State of U.P. and the CBI, praying that the opposite parties be directed to serve summons on the witnesses and produce them before the trial court within a stipulated period so that their evidence is recorded as court witnesses in Case Crime No. 348/2013, S.T. No. 20/2023 (State Vs. Arvind Kashyap), under Sections 147, 302, 120-B IPC and 7 C.L.A. Act, P.S. Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh, pending before the Special Judge (Gangster Court), Azamgarh. The trial court had already allowed the applicant's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 02.12.2024 and issued summons, but the witnesses were not appearing. The Court found that the prayer showed no misuse of the process of court, noted that the applicant admitted he had not applied for bail (his counsel citing his criminal history of many cases), held there was no ground for interference, and rejected the application. Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:25012.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25012

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5379 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Arvind Kashyap Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Mohan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Devendra Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the CBI/opposite party no.2 and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

¶8

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Arvind Kashyap with the following prayers:-

¶9

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the opposite parties to serve the summons to the witnesses and produce before the trial court within a stipulated period the Case Crime No. 348/2013, S.T. No. 20/2023 (State Vs. Arvind Kashyap), under Sections 147, 302, 120-B IPC and 7 C.L.A., Act, Police Station Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh, pending in the Court of Special Judge Gangster Court, District Azamgarh. And/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may be deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the present case, otherwise the applicant suffer irreparable loss and injury."

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is in jail. It is submitted that a direction be issued to the opposite parties to serve summons to the witnesses and produce them before the trial court within specific period of time so that their evidence be recorded as court witnesses, para 10 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is submitted that although the trial court has allowed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. of the applicant but the witnesses are not appearing and as such the present application be allowed.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for the CBI submits that the present application under Section 528 BNSS is not maintainable with the present prayer since there is no order of any court under challenge and even otherwise there is nothing on record to show that there has been any abuse of process of Court. It is submitted that the applicant although claims that he is in jail since last two years but in the present matter he has not yet applied for bail before any court which was his choice. It is submitted that the present application under Section 528 BNSS is devoid of any merit and deserve to be dismissed.

¶12

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the prayer in the present application does not show any misuse of process of Court. The applicant is in jail. He admits that he has not yet applied for bail in the present matter. Learned counsel for the applicant states that since the applicant has criminal history of many cases, he has not applied for bail. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. of the applicant has been allowed by the trial court concerned on 02.12.2024, the trial court has issued summons to the witnesses.

¶13

Looking to the facts of the case, there is no ground for interference in the matter. The present application under Section 528 BNSS is thus rejected .

¶14

Order Date :- 20.2.2025 M. ARIF

¶15

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶16

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arvind Kashyap v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kashyap 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases