Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 67641 (ALL)

SATYAM MAURYA v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

NA528/21579/2025 · 2025-07-14

Prashant Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113915 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21579 of 2025 Applicant :- Satyam Maurya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deenanath Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Atul Srivastava,G.A.,Ravindra Singh Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Deenanath Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Nitin Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Atul Srivastava, learned counsel for O.P. no.2 and perused the record. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the applicant with a prayer for quashing the entire proceedings as well as order dated 12.09.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.17, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No.487 of 2022 (State vs. Somnath and others) arising out of Case Crime No.267 of 2021, under Section 302, 301, 394, 411, 34, 376D IPC, P.S.Rail Bazar, District-Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.17, Kanpur Nagar or to stay further proceedings of the case during pendency of this application. 3. In the instant matter, an FIR was lodged on 30.12.2021 under section 302, 201 IPC against one Somnath wherein it has been alleged that the elder sister of the informant, who had gone to her College, had gone missing and later on, her dead body was found. During course of investigation, name of the present applicant surfaced in the statement of co-accused, as a person who had thrown the dead body. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against three accused persons including the present applicant on 26.03.2022 for offences under sections 302, 201, 394, 411, 34, 376D IPC. Thereafter, court below has framed charges against the applicant vide order dated 09.06.2022 under section 302, 294, 201, 411 IPC and framing of charges under section 376D IPC was deferred with the submission of FSL report. Thereafter, on submission of report of Forensic Science Laboratory dated 30.11.2022, charge under section 376D IPC was framed against the applicant on 12.09.2024, which has been assailed by means of the instant application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was not named in the FIR. He further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case due to some ulterior motive. He further submitted that the FSL is not related to the applicant. He submitted that the trial court has framed charges against the applicant vide order dated 12.09.2024 without any evidence, which is liable to be set aside. He further added that during course of trial the applicant was granted bail by this Court wherein it was observed that the role of the applicant was only of throwing the dead body, as such, the impugned order is totally illegal. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for O.P. no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the application. Learned counsel for O.P. no.2 categorically stated that it cannot be inferred that no offence under section 376D IPC can be said to have been committed by the applicant in the light of F.S.L. report. He further submitted that application of co-accused Ravendra Vishwkarma @ Ravi Vishwkarma has already been dismissed vide order dated 24.02.2025. He submitted that the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court. Learned A.G.A. submitted that this is a most heinous case where the victim was murdered after commission of rape, as such, no interference is required by this Court. 6. After hearing the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the objections raised by learned counsel for O.P. no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. are duly borne out from the record and more so, the same could not be dislodged by learned counsel for the applicant with reference to the record. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. The instant application is devoid of merits. 7. The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad