Gyan Alias Gyanendra Bharthi and 10 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Gyan Alias Gyanendra Bharthi and 10 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim relief only: notice issued to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date; counter affidavit within six weeks; rejoinder affidavit within two weeks thereafter; further proceedings of Case No. 151 of 2019 stayed against the applicants till the next date of listing. Final relief (quashing) not decided.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceeding of Case No. 151 of 2019 (State vs. Ram Kripal and Others), the chargesheet dated 20.02.2018 and the cognizance order dated 19.09.2025 are liable to be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

As an interim measure, further proceedings of Case No. 151 of 2019 shall remain stayed against the applicants till the next date of listing.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vivek Kumar Singh, J.), Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 51198 of 2025, Gyan Alias Gyanendra Bharthi and 10 others v. State of U.P. and another, decided January 20, 2026 — Quashing application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the entire proceeding of Case No. 151 of 2019 (State vs. Ram Kripal and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 293 of 2017 under Section 379 IPC, Section 3/57/7 U.P. Sub Mineral Concession Rules, 1963, Section 4/21 Mines Act, 1952 and Section 3/5 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Ghoorpur, District Prayagraj, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 9, Prayagraj/Allahabad, together with the chargesheet dated 20.02.2018 and cognizance order dated 19.09.2025. Applicants contended false implication: the FIR named 51 persons, 14 named persons were found dead on investigation, some named persons were State officers/employees absent from the scene, and the applicants were innocent labourers; it was further contended that cognizance under Section 4/21 Mines Act and Section 3/57/7 of the Rules can be taken only on the basis of a complaint case. Learned AGA opposed, asserting a prima facie offence and legality of the chargesheet. The Court issued notice to opposite party no. 2, allowed a counter affidavit within six weeks and rejoinder within two weeks, and directed that further proceedings of the case shall remain stayed against the applicants till the next date of listing. Interlocutory order; merits not decided.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 51198 of 2025

Gyan Alias Gyanendra Bharthi And 10 Others

.....Applicant(s)

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Kant Mishra, Mani Shanker Pandey, Rama Nand Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 81

HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.

Present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been preferred for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No. 151 of 2019 (State vs. Ram Kripal and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.293 of 2017, under Section 379 IPC, Section 3/57/7 U.P. Sub Mineral Concession Rules, 1963 and Section 4/21 Mines Act, 1952 and Section 3/5 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Ghoorpur, District Prayagaraj, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.9, Prayagraj/Allahabad as well as impugned Chargesheet dated 20.02.2018 and and cognizance order dated 19.09.2025 issued in the abovementioned proceedings.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. Initially, the FIR was lodged against 51 named and several unknown persons. After due investigation, it was found that 14 persons, named in the FIR, had died and some persons were working as officers or employees of State in different districts and they were not present at the place of alleged incident. The sand was not found in the field of several persons and the applicants being the innocent labourers, have been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that no prima facie offence is made

NA528 No. 51198 of 2025

2

out against the applicants and the learned court cannot take cognizance under section 4/21 of the Mines Act, and Section 3/57/7 U.P. Sub Mineral Concession Rules, 1963 and the cognizance may be taken under the aforesaid acts only on the basis of complaint case.

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and stated that a prima facie offence is made out and innocent persons were exhonerated during the course of investigation and there is no illegality in submission of chargesheet.

The matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.

The opposite parties may file their counter affidavit within six weeks.

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may thereafter be filed within two weeks.

List thereafter.

Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of the aforesaid case shall remain stayed against the applicants.

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)

January 20, 2026

Nitendra

Digitally signed by :- NITENDRA TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad