Allowed¶19

Abrar Ahmed v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC19 May 2026CRMMO/486/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing petition Cr.MMO; Section 311 CrPC application to summon material witnesses dismissed as vague; defence evidence closed 06.05.2026 for failure to serve defence witnesses; right of accused to defend himself; counsel remiss in non-filing list of witnesses; no prejudice to State; conditional setting aside with automatic revival after three days; POCSO trial before Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Special Court (POCSO) Solan; charges under Sections 354, 376 IPC and Sections 6, 10 & 14 POCSO Act, 2012; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside of the Trial Court's order dated 13.05.2026 dismissing the Section 311 CrPC application; the learned Trial Court to summon the witnesses if the list of witnesses is filed within three days, failing which the order dated 13.05.2026 shall revive automatically.

Abrar Ahmed Vs State of Hp — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 13.05.2026 of the learned Trial Court dismissing the petitioner's Section 311 CrPC application for summoning material witnesses should be quashed/set aside. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The offences charged (Sections 354 and 376 IPC; Sections 6, 10 & 14 POCSO Act) are grave, and the right of the accused to defend himself cannot be taken away merely because his counsel was remiss in his duties in not filing the list of witnesses.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Since the copy of the application filed before this Court did not mention the name of any witness sought to be summoned, the learned Trial Court cannot be faulted for dismissing the application by holding that it was vague.

¶16

Key takeaways

No prejudice would be caused to the State by summoning the witnesses, and summoning of the witnesses would assist the Court in arriving at a just conclusion of the trial.ratio¶18
The present petition is allowed and the order dated 13.05.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Special Court (POCSO), Solan, in Case No. 42 of 2021 titled State of H.P. vs Abrar Ahmed is ordered to be set aside.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cr.MMO No. 486 of 2026, decided 19.05.2026 (Rakesh Kainthla, Judge, oral): Petition by the accused (charged under Sections 354 and 376 IPC and Sections 6, 10 & 14 POCSO Act, 2012) to quash the order dated 13.05.2026 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Solan, dismissing his Section 311 CrPC application to summon material witnesses; his defence evidence had been closed on 06.05.2026 for failure to take steps to serve defence witnesses despite repeated adjournments. Held: the Trial Court was not at fault, as the application named no witness and was rightly called vague; however, the accused's right to defend himself cannot be taken away because his counsel was remiss in not filing the list of witnesses, no prejudice would be caused to the State, and summoning the witnesses would assist a just conclusion of the trial. Petition allowed; the order was set aside conditionally - the Trial Court to summon the witnesses if a list of witnesses is filed within three days, failing which the order dated 13.05.2026 revives automatically. The observations have no bearing on the merits of the case.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr.MMO No. 486 of 2026 Date of Decision: 19.05.2026.

¶3

Abrar Ahmed …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent

¶4

Coram

¶5

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Prikshit Rathour, Advocate. : For the Respondent Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

¶7

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (oral)

¶8

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of order dated 13.05.2026, passed in Case No. 42 of 2021, titled as State of H.P. vs Abrar Ahmed passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Solan, District Solan, H.P. (learned Trial Court) (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

¶9

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶10

¶11

It appears from the record that the defence evidence of the petitioner/accused was closed by the learned Trial Court on 06.05.2026 because he has failed to take steps for the service of defence witnesses, despite the repeated adjournments granted by the learned Trial Court. He, subsequently, filed an application under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for summoning the material witnesses, as their examination is necessary for the just decision of the case, which application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 13.05.2026, after holding that the application was vague and was filed just to linger on the case.

¶12

Being aggrieved by the order dated 13^th May, 2026, passed by the learned Trial Court the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶13

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully.

¶14

The copy of the application has been filed before this Court, in which the name of any witness sought to be summoned has not been mentioned. Therefore, the learned Trial Court

¶15

¶16

cannot be faulted for dismissing the application by holding that it was vague.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that the names of the witnesses have not been mentioned in the application, however, during the course of hearing he submits that he would file list of witnesses within three days from today.

¶18

The petitioner/accused is being prosecuted of the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 376 of IPC and Sections 6, 10 & 14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences(POCSO) Act, 2012, which offences are grave. The right of the accused to defend himself cannot be taken away because his counsel was remiss in his duties in non-filing the list of the witnesses. Further, no prejudice would be caused to the State by summoning the witnesses and summoning of the witnesses would assist the Court in arriving at a just conclusion of the trial.

¶19

In view of above, the present petition is allowed and order dated 13.05.2026, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Special Court (POCSO), Solan, District Solan,

¶20

¶21

H.P. in case titled State of H.P.vs Abrar Ahmed in case No. 42 of

¶22

2021 is ordered to be set aside.

¶23

Learned Trial Court will summon the witnesses in case list of witnesses is filed within a period of three days from today, failing which the order dated 13.05.2026 shall revive automatically.

¶24

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any.

¶25

The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.

¶26

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶27

19^th May, 2026 (ravinder)

Abrar Ahmed v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abrar Ahmed v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amandeep Singh Vs State of Hp

Sanjeev Verma Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Mast Ram Vs Tulki deceased through Lr. Tota Ram

Ramesh Chand Vs Ram Krishan

Vikas Kumar alias Kaka Vs State of Hp

Abdul Guffar Kasane Vs State of Hp and Another