Disposed¶13

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2026WRIA/200/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Writ - A No. 200 of 2026 (Vikas Budhwar, J., order dated 13.01.2026): writ petition by Assistant Marketing Officer Rajesh Kumar against suspension order dated 31.12.2025 premised on complainant's audio clipping alleging demand of illegal gratification regarding food-grains; contention that audio clipping inadmissible under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act; reference to inspection/detailed report dated 26.12.2025 at page 56 of paper book; Standing Counsel Rahul Malviya sought time; matter adjourned to 20.01.2026 as fresh; interim/adjournment order, no merits adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

None on merits; Standing Counsel sought time to obtain instructions and the case was directed to be put up on 20.01.2026 as fresh. ¶13

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 200 of 2026

Rajesh Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ashok Srivasta	Kumar va	Upadhyay,	Rahul
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 33

¶10

HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

¶11

Contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner happens to be Assistant Marketing Officer. Submission is that the suspension order dated 31.12.2025 cannot be sustained even for a single moment, particularly, when it is premised upon an audio clipping of the complainant depicting that there was certain transaction with regard to demand of illegal gratification with respect to food-grains. Submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that an inspection report was also submitted and a detailed report was submitted on 26.12.2025 at page 56 of the paper book showing the illegality committed by others. However, the complainant in order to implicate the writ petitioner the framed the said charges. He submits that in view of the provisions contained under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the audio clipping cannot be said to be general document.

¶12

Shri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel seeks time to obtain instructions.

¶13

Put up this case on 20.01.2026 as fresh.

¶14

January 13, 2026 A. Prajapati

¶15

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

¶16

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

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

M/S Gas Trade International vs State of Up and 2 Others

M/S Chamunda Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neelam Chaudhary vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Wasi Ahmad Khan vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Vilas vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Prachi Katiyar vs Sri Shailesh Kumar Pandey Distt. Basic Edu. Officer Unnao