Allahabad High Court
Lavkush @ Lavkush Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 20 August, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48816
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 157 of 2025
Revisionist :- Lavkush @ Lavkush Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rohit Yadav,Achal Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar,Vikas Vikram Singh
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard SriRohit Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri V.K. Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General (AAG), who appeared for the State alongwith Sri Anurag Verma, learned AGA-I & Sri Ajit Singh, learned State Law Officer and also SriRajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 as well as perused the material available on record.
2. By means of the instant revision, the revisionist has assailed the order dated 28.01.2025, whereby, the Sessions Judge, Raebareli (in short 'trial court') rejected the application No. 950-Kha dated 24.01.2025 preferredby the accused namely Atul Tiwari,Lavkush, Arpit and Ramesh in terms of Section 233 Cr.P.C.through Sri D.P. Pal, Advocate.
3. The revisionist has also assailed the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the trial court, whereby, subsequentapplication No. 960-Kha dated 25.01.2025 preferred by the accused namely Atul Tiwari,Lavkush, Arpit Yadav and Ramesh Yadavin terms of Section 233 Cr.P.C.through Sri D.P. Pal, Advocatehas been rejected.
4. It is to be noted that accusednamely Atul Tiwari, Arpit and Ramesh have not challenged the impugned ordersdateddated28.01.2025 and 30.01.2025.
5. Brief facts of the case, which are relevant for the purposes of coming to the conclusion in the instant matter, are as under:-
(i) An FIR i.e. FIR No. 0366/2019 was lodgedby the opposite party No. 2/Pradeep Kumar Singhat Police Station- Harchandpur, District- Raebareli on 10.10.2019 against Suresh Yadav, owner of Somu Dhaba, and staff of Somu Dhaba under Sections- 302, 201 IPC.
(ii) During investigation, the names of other accused were surfaced.
(iii) The Investigating Officer (in short "IO") based upon the evidence and material collected during investigation including video footage and clip of social media filed charge sheet against as many as 16 accused namely (1) Suresh Yadav (named accused in FIR) s/o Bharat Lal Yadav, (2) Manu Kumar Bari s/o Lalit Kumar Bari, (3) Abhitej Singh s/o Suryabhan Singh, (4) Vinod Kumar s/o Ram Kumar, (5) Sumer @ Ram Sumer s/o Kundan Lal Pasi, (6) Ghurha @ Jaichandra @ Jitendra s/o Kundan Lal Pasi, (7) Saurabh Sharma s/o Radhey Shyam, (8) Ram Krishna Yadav @ R.K. Yadav s/o Maiku Lal Yadav, (9) Gaya Bux Singh @ Deepu Singh s/o Tribhuvan Singh, (10) Lavkush Kumar (revisionist herein) s/o Sahab Prasad, (11) Atul Tiwari s/o Late Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, (12) Sachin Kumar Soni @ Pawan Soni s/o Chandra Parakash Soni, (13) Ankit Yadav @ Somu Yadav s/o Suresh Yadav, (14) Harshit Verma s/o Ram Lakhan Verma, (15) Ram Pratap Yadav @ R.P. Yadav s/o Late Gareeb Yadav and (16) Ramesh Yadav s/o Shambhu Yadav under Sections 147, 148, 149,302,323,201, 120-B, 216 IPC.
(iv) The charge sheet on record as Annexure No. 7 to the instant revision indicates that to establish its case the prosecution would examine 25 persons/witnesses.
(v) It is to be noted, as stated/informed, that all theaforesaidaccused were apprehended and at present they are on bail.
(vi) Upon committal, the case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 11/2020 and the trial court framed the charges under the aforesaid Sectionson 16.09.2022.
(vii) Thereafter, the evidence of the prosecution was completed on 22.01.2025 and after completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of accused persons were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C.
(viii) The copy of statement of revisionist has not been placed on record so as to ascertain as to what defence has been takenby the revisionistbefore the trial court.
(ix) It is relevant to indicate at this stage that according to the counsel for the revisionist, the documents and witnesses indicated in the aforesaid application(s) dated24.01.2025 and 25.01.2025preferred in terms of Section 233 Cr.P.C. were filed to establish the plea of 'Alibi'.
(x) However, the aforesaid is not apparent from the pleadings and documents on record including the application(s) preferred by the revisionist and other above named accused in terms of Section 233 Cr.P.C., who have chosen not to impeach the impugned orders dated28.01.2025 and 30.01.2025.
6. In the aforesaid background of the case, the instant revision has been filed before this Court.
7. Impeaching the impugned orders dateddated28.01.2025 and 30.01.2025, learned counsel for the revisionist stated that in not allowing the aforesaid application(s) preferred in terms of Section 233 Cr.P.C., the trial court erred in law and fact both.
8. It is further stated that to defend the case particularly the criminal case, proper opportunity should be provided, which has been declined by the trial court videimpugnedorders dated28.01.2025 and 30.01.2025 passed on the aforesaid application(s) preferred by the accused persons named therein, as in the said application(s), reasons were indicated for summoning the documents and witnesses named therein.
9. It is further stated that in earlier application i.e.application No. 950-Kha dated 24.01.2025, proper reasons were not given and therefore the same was rejected vide order dated 28.01.2025 and thereafter the second applicationi.e.application No. 960-Kha dated 25.01.2025 with reasons was preferred and the same has also been rejected vide order dated 30.01.2025, which should not have been done.
10. Opposing the instant revision, learned counsel for the side opposite submitted as under:-
(i) The accused facing trial want to delay the conclusion of trial, which is at the stage of final arguments, and Government Advocate and counsel for the informant have concluded their arguments today itself.
(ii) Co-accused namely Sachin Kumar Verma @ Sachin Kumar Soni @ Pawan Soni approached this Court by means of Application U/S 482 No. 2141 of 2025 challenging the order dated 13.02.2025, whereby, the trial court rejected the application preferred by the said accused in terms of Section 233 Cr.P.C. and this Court vide judgment dated 07.07.2025 partly allowed the said application.
(iii) A conjoint reading of the contents of the application(s)dated24.01.2025 and 25.01.2025preferred in terms of Section 233 Cr.P.C.and also paragraphs 4 and 31 of the aforesaid judgment dated 07.07.2025 would indicate that a similar application was filed by co-accusednamely Sachin Kumar Verma @ Sachin Kumar Soni @ Pawan Soniand this Court rejected the request related to summoning the preliminary enquiry report dated 18.11.2019, show cause notice dated 19.11.2019 and summoning the entry made in General Diary (G.D.) and allowed the request related to summoning of Inspector in-charge, Police Station- Mill Area, Raebareli namely Sri Raj Kumar Pandey as well as Constable Virendra Bhargava and Head Constable Suresh Chandra, who have already been examined before the trial court and declared hostile.
(iv) One accused person namely Suresh Yadav @ Suresh Kumar Yadav, whose application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was rejected, approached this Court by means of Application U/S 482 No. 1000 of 2025 and this Court rejected the said application vide order dated 11.02.2025.
(v) Any accused has right to prefer an application in terms of Section 233 Cr.P.C. However, the trial court is not under obligation to allow each and every applications preferred in this regard by the accused concerned in terms of Section 233 Cr.P.C.
(vi) In regard to aforesaid submission(s), reference has been made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Badri Yadav, AIR 2006 SC 1769, relevant paragraphs of which read as under:-
"7.In this matter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed Crl.R.P. No. 46/2022 relying on a decision reported in AIR 2006 SC 1769: 2006 KHC 842 :(2006) 3 KLT 205:(2006) 9 SCC 549],State of Madhya Pradeshv.Badri Yadav]. In the said decision, the Apex Court considered the impact of Section 233(3) of Cr.P.C. Section 233 deals with 'entering upon defence'. Sub section 3 of Section 233 provides thatif the accused applies for the issue of any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or thing, the Judge shall issue such process unless he considers, for reasons to be recorded, that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. While interpreting sub section 3 of Section 233 of Cr.P.C, the Apex Court held thatS.233 itself deals with entering upon defence by the accused. The application for recalling and reexamining persons already examined, as provided under S.311 Cr.P.C., was already rejected. The power to summon any person as a witness or recall and reexamine any person already examined is the discretionary power of the Court in case such evidence appears to it to be essential for a just decision of the case. Under S.233 Cr.P.C. the accused can enter upon defence and he can apply for the issue of any process for compelling the attendance of any witness in his defence. The provisions of sub-s.(3) of S.233 cannot be understood as compelling the attendance of any prosecution witness examined, cross examined and discharged to be juxtaposed as Dws (Defence Witnesses). In the present case PW8 and PW9 were juxtaposed as DW1 and DW2. This situation is not one what was contemplated by sub-s.3 of S.233 Cr.P.C.
8.Thus the law is very clear on the point that the provisions of sub section 3 of Section 233 Cr.P.C. could not be understood as one compelling the attendance of any prosecution witness, who was examined in chief already, cross examined and reexamined, to be examined as a defence witness.
9.In the present case, the prayer that has been canvassed after dismissal of the petition filed to recall PW3 is for the said purpose and, therefore, such procedure cannot be permitted. In view of the matter, the orders impugned do not require any interference and, therefore, this petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed."
(vii) Further, reliance has also been placed on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Talwar and another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2014) 1 SCC 628, relevant paragraphs of which read as under:-
"9.After considering the rival submissions on this point, we find no merit in the contention on behalf of the petitioners that they could not have approached this Court earlier. There is no reason why the petitioners ought to have waited from 19-7-2013 to 17-9-2013 to approach this Court and allowed the trial to proceed even further. We make this observation in the background of the observation of the High Court that even the initial applications were made at a stage where the prosecution evidence had been concluded and the defence had entered and almost concluded its evidence. In fact, the petitioners had, without raising any objection that the reports and documents allegedly proved by the witnesses have not been supplied to them or made part of the Court record, participated in the examination and cross-examination of two witnesses. We might note that criminal courts are not obliged to accede to the request made by any party to entertain and allow application for additional evidence and in fact, are bound in terms of Section 233(3) CrPC to refuse such request if it appears that they are made in order to vex the proceedings or delay the same. It is also pertinent to mention here that the learned trial Judge who has been conducting the trial is likely to retire very soon.
11.This Court inSelvi J. Jayalalithaav.State of Karnataka[Selvi J. Jayalalithaav.State of Karnataka, (2014) 2 SCC 401] decided on 30-9-2013, after referring to its earlier judgments inTrivenibenv.State ofGujarat[(1989) 1 SCC 678 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 248 : AIR 1989 SC 1335] ,Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5)v.State of Gujarat[(2006) 3 SCC 374 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 8 : AIR 2006 SC 1367] ,Amarinder Singhv.Parkash Singh Badal[(2009) 6 SCC 260 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 971] ,Mohd. Hussainv.State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)[(2012) 2 SCC 584 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 919 : AIR 2012 SC 750] andNatasha Singhv.CBI[(2013) 5 SCC 741] , dealt with the issue of fair trial observing : (Selvi J. Jayalalithaa[Selvi J. Jayalalithaav.State of Karnataka, (2014) 2 SCC 401] , SCC paras 28-30)
"28. Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure and such fairness should not be hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the society. Thus, fair trial must be accorded to every accused in the spirit of right to life and personal liberty and the accused must get a free and fair, just and reasonable trial on the charge imputed in a criminal case. Any breach or violation of public rights and duties adversely affects the community as a whole and it becomes harmful to the society in general. In all circumstances, the courts have a duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice and such duty is to vindicate and uphold the 'majesty of the law' and the courts cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious or oppressive conduct that occurs in relation to criminal proceedings.
29. Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as is to the victim and the society. It necessarily requires a trial before an impartial Judge, a fair prosecutor and an atmosphere of judicial calm. Since the object of the trial is to mete out justice and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent, the trial should be a search for the truth and not a bout over technicalities and must be conducted under such rules as will protect the innocent and punish the guilty. Justice should not only be done but should be seem to have been done. Therefore, free and fair trial is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. Right to get a fair trial is not only a basic fundamental right but a human right also. Therefore, any hindrance in a fair trial could be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?.
30. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for the right to a fair trial what is enshrined in Article 21 of our Constitution. Therefore, fair trial is the heart of criminal jurisprudence and, in a way, an important facet of a democratic polity and is governed by rule of law. Denial of fair trial is crucifixion of human rights."
11. Considered the aforesaid and also the documents available on record including theapplication(s)dated24.01.2025 and 25.01.2025preferred in terms of Section 233 Cr.P.C.
12. In order to conclude the instant matter, this Court also finds it appropriate to extract the relevant contents of the applications dated 24.01.2025 and 25.01.2025, which are as under:-
(a) Relevant contents ofapplication dated 24.01.2025.
"????????? ???? ??? ??? 233 ??? ???????
?????,
?????????? ???? ?? ????? ????????? ??? ???????? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ???? 233 (3) ??? ??????? ?? ???????? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ????
1. ????? ????????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? 4.11.2019 ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????????? ???? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??????-2 ?? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???????????? ??? ??????????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ????, ??????? ????????? ? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ?????? 4.11.2019 ??? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ????????? ?? ????? ?????? ???????? ?? ???????? ????
2. ??????? ???????-????, (?????) ??????-2 ?????? ?????????? ???? ?????? 1187/?.-?-??.-4-2019 ?? ?? ?????? ?????? 181589069 ??? 181158190112966 ???????? 17.12.2019 ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ??????????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ?????? 14.10.2019 ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ??????... 12.10.2019 ???? ??????? ???? ???? ??? (?????) ??????-2 ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????????? ???????????? ????? ??0 366/2019 ?? ???? ?? ????????? ???
3. ??? ???? ??????? ???? ???????????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????????? ?? ???????????? ???? ?????? ??? VMTCO18909000100 ???? ?????? 15.10.2019 ?? ???? ?????? ?????? 14.10.2020 ???? ???? ??????? ?????????? ??? ?????? 33 ?? ??? 0633 ?????? ???? ???????? ?????? 591 TRA/514 ????? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ?????????????? ?????????? ?????? ??? ??? 33 ??? ???0 0633 ???? ??????????? ?????? ???????? ??? ??????? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????
4. ??????? ????? ??????? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ??-197/2019 ?????? 19.11.2019 ?? ?????????? ???? ????? ?????? 9.10.2019 ?? ??????? ??????? ???????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ????? 372662855 ??? ?????? ????????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ????? 062630230 ?? ???? ????? ??? 366/2019 ?? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ??? ??, ??? ???? ?? ???? ????
5. ???????? ??????? ???????? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ??? 982390067 ???? ??? ????? ???? ???????? ???????? ?????? 9.10.2019 ?? ???? ?? ??????? ??? 0.09 ??? ?????? 10.10.2019 ?? ????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? 01.00 ??? ?????? 10.10.2019 ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ??????
6. ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ??0 972662855 ????? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? 10.10.2019 ?? ??? 0.21 ?? 2.00 ??? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ???
7. ??? ???? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ??? ?????? 23.10.2019 ?? ???????? ?? ???? ?????? 192 ?/47 ?? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?
8. ???? ???????? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ?? 388/2018 ??????? ???? 147 307 504 ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ?????? 285/2019 ?? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??? 4 ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ????????? ?? ??? ????? ??, ??????? ?????? 13.10.2018 ?? ????? ???????? ??? ???????? ???? ???????? ???????? ???????? ?? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ?????, ???? ?????, ??? ?????????? ???? ?? ?????? ??, ???? ??????? ????????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ???? ???????? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ???"
(b)Relevant contentsofapplication dated 25.01.2025.
"????????? ???? ??? ???? 233 ??? ???????
?????,
?????????? ???? ??? ????? ????????? ??? ???????? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ???? 233(3) ??? ??????? ?? ???????? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ????
1. ????? ????????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? 4.11.2019 ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????????? ???? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??????-2 ?? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???????????? ??? ??????????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ????, ??????? ????????? ? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ?????? 4.11.2019 ??? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ????????? ?? ????? ?????? ???????? ?? ???????? ????
?????? ??? 1 ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ????? 40 ?? ???? 3 ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????? 4.11.2019 ??? ?????? ?? ??? ?????, ???? ???? ??????? ???? ?????, ??????? ???? ????, ????? ???? ? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ? ??? ????? ???? (??????) ?? ??? ???? ?????? ??????????? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ???, ???? ????????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ?? "???????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ??????"
????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? 4.11.2019 ?? ??? ?????????? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??????? ???
????? ????- ?? ????????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????, ???? ?????? ????, ?????? ????, ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ???, ??????? ???, ???? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ????????? ?? ??? 16 ?????????? ?? ????? ???? ???
???? ????????? ??? ???? ????????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ?????????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??, ????? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???????? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ??? 192 ?/2, 192 ?/3, 192?/4 ????? ???
2. ??????? ???????-???? (?????) ??????-2 ?????? ?????????? ???? ?????? 1187/?.-?-??.-4-2019 ?? ?? ?????? ?????? 181589069 ??? 181158190112966 ???????? 17.12.2019 ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ??????????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ?????? 14.10.2019 ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ??????...12.10.2019 ???? ??????? ???? ???? ??? (?????) ??????-2 ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????????? ???????????? ????? ??0 366/2019 ?? ???? ?? ????????? ???
???? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? 12.10.2019 ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ??????????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?????????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? 24.12.2019 ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????????? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??????? ????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ???
3. ??? ???? ??????? ???? ???????????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????????? ???? ???????????? ?????? ??? VMTCO18909000100 ???? ?????? 15.10.2019 ?? ???? ?????? ?????? 14.10.2020 ???? ???? ??????? ?????????? ??? ?????? 33 ?? ??? 0633 ?????? ???? ???????? ?????? 591 TRA/514 ????? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ?????????????? ?????????? ?????? ?????? 33 ?? ??? 0633 ???? ??????????? ?????? ???????? ??? ??????? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????
???? ??? ?????? 33 ??? ???0 0633 ???? ?????? 9.10.2019 ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???? ??????????? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ??? ????????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ???, ?? ????? ???
4. ??????? ????? ??????? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ?????? ??-197/2019 ?????? 19.11.2019 ?? ?????????? ???? ????? ?????? 9.10.2019 ?? ??????? ??????? ???????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ????? 372662855 ??? ?????? ????????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ????? 062630230 ?? ???? ????? ??? 366/2019 ?? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ??? ??, ??? ???? ?? ???? ????
5. ???????? ??????? ???????? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ??? 982390067 ???? ??? ????? ???? ???????? ????????? ?????? 9.10.2019 ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?? 0.09 ??? ?????? 10.10.2019 ?? ????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? 01.00 ??? ?????? 10.10.2019 ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ??????
6. ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ??0 972662855 ????? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? 10.10.2019 ?? ??? 0.21 ?? 2.00 ??? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ???
7. ??? ???? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ??? ?????? 23.10.2019 ?? ???????? ?? ???? ?????? 192 ?/47 ?? ?? ????? ???? ?????
8. ???? ???????? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ?? 388/2018 ??????? ???? 147 307 504 ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ?????? 285/2019 ?? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??? 4 ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ????????? ?? ??? ????? ??, ??????? ?????? 13.10.2018 ?? ????? ???????? ??? ???????? ???? ???????? ???????? ???????? ?? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ?????, ???? ?????, ??? ?????????? ???? ?? ?????? ??, ???? ??????? ????????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ???? ???????? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ???"
13. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid,this Court finds that no interference is required in the impugned ordersdated28.01.2025 and 30.01.2025. It is for the following reasons:-
(i)A conjoint reading of the above quoted contents of the aforesaid application(s)dated24.01.2025 and 25.01.2025preferred in terms of Section 233 Cr.P.C.and also paragraphs 4 and 31 of the aforesaid judgment dated 07.07.2025 would indicate that a similar application was filed by co-accusednamely Sachin Kumar Verma @ Sachin Kumar Soni @ Pawan Soniand this Court rejected the request related to summoning the preliminary enquiry report dated 18.11.2019, show cause notice dated 19.11.2019 and summoning the entry made in General Diary (G.D.) and allowed the request related to summoning of Inspector in-charge, Police Station- Mill Area, Raebareli namely Sri Raj Kumar Pandey as well as Constable Virendra Bhargava and Head Constable Suresh Chandra, who have already been examined before the trial court and declared hostile.
(ii) Request to summon the letter/application dated 04.11.2019 of the informant/Pradeep Kumar Singh preferred to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, letter dated 14.10.2019 written by Ms. Aditi Singh, letter(s) dated 12.10.2019 written by Sri Dinesh Singh and letter dated 17.12.2019 of Home Department are also misconceived, as to the view of this Court, the same are not relevant to establish the plea of 'Alibi'.
(iii) The documents related to disbursement of amount of claim of Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing Registration No. U.P.33GY0633 by M/s Royal Sundram General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Lucknow would also not be helpful, to the view of this Court, to establish the plea of 'Alibi'.
(iv)The accused facing trial want to delay the conclusion of trial by preferring the application(s) in terms of Sections 91 or 233 Cr.P.C.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the instant revision is dismissed. Cost made easy.
Order Date :- 20.8.2025
Arun/-
