Disposed

Sarvesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2025NA529/4509/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Informant of a pending sessions trial under multiple IPC sections sought a direction for expeditious decision. The High Court directed the trial court to expedite proceedings and decide the case preferably within one year, subject to no legal impediment.

What did the court decide?

Trial court directed to expedite and decide the case preferably within one year.

Sarvesh Kumar vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 4509 of 2025

Sarvesh Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nisha Chouhan, Shailendra Singh Rathore Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 87

¶8

HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Amrit Raj, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is informant in S.T. No. 300 of 2015, (State Vs. Rajveer & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 109 of 1995, under Sections 376, 364, 323, 342, 218, 120B I.P.C. Police Station Bichhwan, court of District Mainpuri, which is pending in the court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Mainpuri. Learned counsel has further submitted that out of 35 prosecution witnesses, three witnesses have been examined by the trial court. He, however, prays that a direction be issued to the learned trial court to decide the said case as expeditiously as possible.

¶11

Learned AGA has conceded to the same facts as narrated by the learned counsel for the applicant. He has further submitted that remaining accused are absconding and processes for their appearance have already been issued by the Magistrate concerned. After issuing the processes, on the direction of the District Judge, proceeding of the remaining absconding accused have also been committed to the court of Sessions.

¶12

In light of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the concerned trial court is directed to expedite the proceeding and thereafter will make all endeavour to decide the aforesaid case expeditiously and preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, provided there is no legal impediment.

¶13

With the aforesaid directions/observations, the application under Section 529 B.N.S.S. is disposed of .

¶14

November 25, 2025 SK

¶15

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶16

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

Sarvesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Neha vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Jaisawal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Neetu vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Shah Badre Alam and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Inshad vs State of U.P.