Dismissed¶23

Rajeev Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2026NA528/1258/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS quashing application dismissed; interim protection from coercive measures is not a stay of trial; trial court free to proceed absent clear and specific stay order; Sessions Judge, Etah; S.T. No. 469 of 2013; Case Crime No. 299 of 2009; interim order dated 21.12.2022; impugned order dated 05.12.2025; no illegality or jurisdictional error; Allahabad High Court; Padam Narain Mishra, J.; decided 18.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Grant of protection from coercive action cannot be construed as a stay of trial proceedings; unless there is a clear and specific order staying the proceedings of the trial, the trial court is not precluded from proceeding with the matter in accordance with law. ¶19

Rajeev Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim order dated 21.12.2022 of this Court, granting protection from coercive measures, operated as a stay of the trial proceedings so as to preclude the trial court from proceeding with S.T. No. 469 of 2013. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The learned trial court, not having been restrained by any specific order of stay, rightly proceeded with the matter and fixed the case for arguments; no illegality or jurisdictional error is found in the impugned order.

¶20

Key takeaways

The contention of the applicant that the trial court acted in violation of the order of this Court is misconceived and devoid of merit.ratio¶21
This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of powers under Section 528 BNSS.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Padam Narain Mishra, J., 18.02.2026) dismissed an application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the order dated 05.12.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Etah in S.T. No. 469 of 2013 (arising out of Case Crime No. 299 of 2009). The applicant relied on this Court's interim order dated 21.12.2022 granting protection from coercive measures, contending that the trial court, by proceeding and fixing the case for prosecution arguments the same day, acted in disregard of that order. Held: an interim order granting protection from coercive action contains no specific direction staying the trial; unless there is a clear and specific order staying the proceedings of the trial, the trial court is not precluded from proceeding in accordance with law, and protection from coercive action cannot be construed as a stay of trial proceedings. No illegality or jurisdictional error was found in the impugned order; the applicant's contention was held misconceived and devoid of merit, and the application was dismissed. No precedent was cited in the judgment.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1258 of 2026

¶3

Rajeev Kumar And 3 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Ashok Kumar Singh, Pratibha Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s):	G.A., Nitinjay Pandey, Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi

¶9

Court No. - 82

¶10

HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Nijinjay Pandey, Advocate and Sri Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2 and Sri Vinay Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶12

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned order dated 05.12.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Etah in S.T. No. 469 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 299 of 2009.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Court, vide order dated 21.12.2022, had granted interim protection to the applicant. It is contended that the learned trial court, without properly appreciating the said order, proceeded with the matter and fixed the case on the same day post-lunch session for arguments on behalf of the prosecution. It is thus argued that the impugned order has been passed in disregard of the order of this Court and is liable to be set aside.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer and submitted that the order dated 21.12.2022 passed by this Court did not stay the proceedings of the trial, but only granted protection from coercive measures. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has acted within its jurisdiction in proceeding with the trial.

¶15

Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the controversy revolves around the interpretation of the interim order

¶16

NA528 No. 1258 of 2026

¶17

¶18

dated 21.12.2022 passed by this Court.

¶19

A perusal of the said order indicates that this Court had granted protection to the applicant from coercive action; however, there is no specific direction staying further proceedings of the trial. It is well settled that unless there is a clear and specific order staying the proceedings of the trial, the trial court is not precluded from proceeding with the matter in accordance with law. Grant of protection from coercive action cannot be construed as a stay of trial proceedings.

¶20

In the present case, the learned trial court, having not been restrained by any specific order of stay, has rightly proceeded with the matter and fixed the case for arguments. No illegality or jurisdictional error is found in the impugned order.

¶21

The contention of the applicant that the trial court has acted in violation of the order of this Court is, therefore, misconceived and devoid of merit.

¶22

In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of powers under Section 528 BNSS.

¶23

In view of aforesaid discussion, the instant application is hereby dismissed.

¶24

February 18, 2026 Israr

¶25

(Padam Narain Mishra,J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ISRAR AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajeev Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar and 3 Others 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

Similar cases

Vansh vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Kumar Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vansh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rajeev Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akash Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another