HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1762 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application has been filed with the following prayer:- "(i) To quash/set aside the impugned order dated 08.10.2025 passed on application U/S 94 B.N.S.S., 2023 by Special Judge, (P.C. Act.), Court No.06, Lucknow (Ajay Singh Versus State of U.P.) in S.T. No. 1004/2025 arising out of case crime No. 0004/2025, u/s 7 P.C. Act, 1988 as Amended -2018, P.S.- U.P. Satarkta Adhishthan, C.I. Sector, Lucknow which is contained as Annexure No. 01 to this petition. (ii) To issue order or direction to Special Judge (P.C.Act.) Court No.-06, Lucknow to decide as fresh application file by the petitioner U/S 94 B.N.S.S. -2023 after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties of the case in the interest of justice. (iii) To direct the opposite party No.-02 to submit investigation report as application U/S 94 B.N.S.S.-2023 dated 03.10.2025 filed by petitioner (Ajay Singh Versus State of U.P.) in S.T.No.1004/2025, case crime No. 0004/2025,U/S-7 P.C.Act.-1988 as Amended -2018 P.S. -U.P. Satarkta Adhishthan, C.I. Sector, Lucknow before Special Judge (P.C.Act.) Court No.-06, Lucknow which is contained as Annexure No. 04 to this petition." 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was falsely implicated in the case in question, but he never took any bribe. He further Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vikas Sharma, Pawan Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ajay Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) submits that on the basis of false trap, the applicant was implicated in the present case. He next submits that the charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer, after that, an application was filed before the competent Court for summoning of the farmers, those were present at the time of distribution of the seed as their presence is recorded in the geotagging, but the said application was rejected in the most mechanical manner, hence, indulgence of this Court is required. 4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that a request has been made by the applicant for summoning of the farmers those were present the time of distribution of the seed, and this is only permissible after recording the statement of the accused u/s 278 of B.N.S.S., hence, there is no illegality in the order passed by learned trial Court. 5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that vague prayer has been made for summoning of the farmers those were present at the time of distribution of seed, when the alleged trap was conducted on the basis of photographs of the geotagging. It is also evident that no specific name of the farmers has been mentioned. The opportunity to produce defense witness is available after recording the statement of the accused u/s 278 of B.N.S.S. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. 6. With the above observations, the application, being misconceived, is dismissed. 7. However, it is open to the applicant to move appropriate application for calling the defense witnesses at the appropriate stage. December 3, 2025 Arpan NA528 No. 1762 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench