Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 18 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1085
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application No. 190 of 2018
(under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)
18th February, 2026
Prem .............Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and another ............Respondent
Criminal Misc Application No. 437 of 2025
(under Section 528 of B.N.S.S)
Rajesh .............Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and another ............Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Dinesh
Chauhan, learned Brief Holder for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J. (Oral)
The present applications have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the orders dated 29.01.2018 and 25.03.2025 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar and the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, respectively, in Sessions Trial No.100 of 2016 and Sessions Trial No.01 of 2022, arising out of offences punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 504 I.P.C. The 1 2026:UHC:1085 applicants have further prayed that their applications dated 29.01.2018 and 25.03.2025 seeking release be allowed, on the ground that the summoning order dated 26.04.2017 passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. had already been stayed by this Court vide order dated 25.01.2018, and consequently, a direction be issued to the learned trial court to release the applicants forthwith.
2. In both the C-482 application and C-528 application, the dispute, facts, and questions of law involved are the same. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts of C-482 No. 190 of 2018 are being taken into consideration.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that respondent no.2 lodged an F.I.R. alleging that on 17.10.2015 at about 11:30 A.M., an altercation took place, whereafter Deepak, his father Prem and his associate Manga @ Pankaj reached the spot. It was alleged that Prem and Manga @ Pankaj caught hold of the complainant's brother, while Deepak assaulted him with a knife, causing serious injuries, and during the course of being taken to the hospital for treatment, he succumbed to the injuries.
4. It is further submitted that upon completion 2 2026:UHC:1085 of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet only against accused Deepak under Sections 302, 323 and 504 I.P.C., whereupon cognizance was taken by the learned trial court. Subsequently, on 17.10.2016, respondent no.2 moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of the present applicant and other named persons to face trial. Initially, the learned trial court observed that the cross-examination of prosecution witness no.1 was yet to be completed and deferred consideration of the application. Thereafter, vide order dated 26.04.2017, the learned trial court summoned the present applicant along with co-accused Manga @ Pankaj, Prem and Smt. Rajesh under Sections 302/34, 323/34 and 504 I.P.C.
5. Aggrieved thereby, co-accused Manga @ Pankaj preferred Criminal Revision No.266 of 2017 before this Court. This Court, vide order dated 25.01.2018, stayed the effect and operation of the summoning order dated 26.04.2017, observing inter alia that only two out of twenty-one prosecution witnesses had been examined and it would not be appropriate at that stage to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is further 3 2026:UHC:1085 submitted that ultimately, vide judgment and order dated 03.04.2019, this Court allowed the said criminal revision and set aside the summoning order dated 26.04.2017.
6. Learned counsel submits that in view of the stay granted by this Court on 25.01.2018, the applicant moved an application before the learned trial court seeking his release from custody. However, the learned trial court rejected the said application vide impugned order dated 29.01.2018 on the ground that since the revision had been filed only by Manga @ Pankaj, the benefit of the stay order would enure only to him and not to the present applicant. It is contended that the summoning order dated 26.04.2017 was a composite and indivisible order, and once its operation had been stayed, the same could not have been enforced against any of the persons summoned therein.
7. It is further submitted that the applicant in C-482 No.190 of 2018 had surrendered before the learned trial court on 30.10.2017 and the applicant in C-528 No.437 of 2025 was arrested on 23.03.2025 in compliance with the summoning order dated 26.04.2017 and have been in custody since then. During the subsistence of the stay order dated 4 2026:UHC:1085 25.01.2018, there remained no legal basis to continue their detention. The learned trial court, by ignoring the binding order of this Court, committed a manifest error of law in rejecting the applicants' release application.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the application and submitted that since the criminal revision was preferred only by Manga @ Pankaj, the interim stay order dated 25.01.2018 would operate only qua the revisionist and not in favour of the present applicant. However, it is not disputed that subsequently the summoning order dated 26.04.2017 has been set aside by this Court vide judgment and order dated 03.04.2019.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
10. It is an admitted fact that by order dated 26.04.2017, passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the learned trial court summoned the present applicants along with Manga @ Pankaj, Prem and Smt. Rajesh to face trial. The said summoning order was stayed by this Court on 25.01.2018 in Criminal Revision No. 266 of 2017.
11. The question for consideration is whether, after the operation of the summoning order had been 5 2026:UHC:1085 stayed, the trial court could refuse the applicants' release merely on the ground that the revision was filed only by co-accused Manga @ Pankaj.
12. The summoning order dated 26.04.2017 was a common and composite order against all the accused persons. The stay granted by this Court was on the operation of the entire order and did not make any distinction between the accused persons. Once the operation of the summoning order was stayed, it became inoperative in law and could not be enforced against any of the persons summoned under it. The trial court, while passing the order dated 29.01.2018, failed to appreciate that when the operation of an order is stayed, its legal effect remains suspended during the period of stay. Therefore, the applicant could not have been treated as a validly summoned accused. The view that the benefit of the stay was confined only to the revisionist is legally incorrect, particularly when the summoning order was indivisible.
13. It is undisputed that this Court, by judgment and order dated 03.04.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No. 266 of 2017, set aside the summoning order dated 26.04.2017. The said judgment has not been challenged before any higher forum and has, therefore, attained finality. Consequently, once the very foundation of the 6 2026:UHC:1085 proceedings i.e., the summoning order dated 26.04.2017 stands quashed, all subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom automatically fall to the ground and cannot survive in the eyes of law. Any action taken in pursuance thereof is non-est and without jurisdiction.
14. The applicants had surrendered in compliance with the summoning order and remained in custody. After the stay and subsequent quashing of the summoning order, there was no legal basis to continue his detention.
15. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.01.2018 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar and impugned order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar are illegal and are set aside in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
16. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and 528 B.N.S.S. are allowed. The applicants shall be released forthwith in Sessions Trial No. 100 of 2016 and Sessions Trial No.01 of 2022, if not required in any other cases.
17. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ALOK MAHRA, J.) 18.02.2026 7 2026:UHC:1085 Mamta 8