Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:128927 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 25227 of 2025 Applicant :- Shubham Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sandeep Jain,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-opposite party. 2. The present application has been filed to quash the Charge sheet dated 31.3.2025 along with cognizance and summoning order dated 14.05.2025 in Sessions Trial No.913 of 2025 (State Vs. K.D Pandt & others) arising out of case crime No. 01 of 2025, under section 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1) read with Section 61(2)(a) of the BNS, along with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Sikandara, District- Agra. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that prima facie there is no evidence available on record to show the culpability of the applicant in the alleged incident, and therefore, the charge sheet of the pending trial should be quashed. 4. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer, arguing that there is substantive evidence in the case diary suggesting that the applicant was present at the time of the dispute along with the other co-accused. He was identified by the people present at the scene, and therefore, there are no grounds to quash the charge sheet and the pending sessions trial against the applicant. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident from the case diary that a brawl took place between several individuals. The incident was captured on CCTV from a nearby shop, which shows the applicant was present on the spot at the time of incident. Additionally, local shopkeepers have also recognized the applicant. The brawl, which appears to have been an effort to establish supremacy, involved persons armed with sticks, rods and illegal weapons. A firearm was used, resulting in the death of one person named Amir and for this a prosecution is pending against the applicant and other co- accused. 6. It is also evident that the trial court has framed charges against the applicant under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), and 61(2)(a) of the BNS, along with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. It appears that there is sufficient prima facie evidence against the applicant, and therefore, no grounds have been established for quashing the charge sheet or the pending trial. 7. In view of the above, it is not a fit case for exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 B.N.S.S. 8. The application is devoid of merits and hence dismissed. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Himanshu Digitally signed by :- HIMANSHU YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad