HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3136 of 2026 Court No. - 81 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record. 2. The instant application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been preferred with a prayer to quash the order dated 11th November, 2025 as well as the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2025 (State Vs. Shadab Khan & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 516 of 2025 under Sections 74, 115 (2), 324 (6), 310 (2) 191 (2), 351 (2), 308 (2), 317 (3) B.N.S. and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Police Station-Kotwali Orai, District jalaun, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Jalaun at Orai. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigation Officer against the applicant along with other two co-accused on 28th October, 2025 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Jalaun at Orai upon which the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Jalaun at Orai has taken cognizance on the next date i.e. 29th October, 2025 and the accused-applicant Shadab Khan was present through Vedeo Conferencing from District/Central Jail, Kanpur Dehat as he has not engaged any counsel. While taking cognizance i.e. on 29th October, 2025, the trial court fixed a date for framing of charge for 11th November, 2025. However, without complying the mandatory provisions enumerated under Sections 230, 261, and 262 (2) B.N.S.S. by providing police report and other documents to the applicant or providing a legal aid to him as well as without affording opportunity of hearing to the applicant to have his say in the matter by means of discharge application, the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Salman Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sandesh Niranjan, Shravan Kumar Yadav Shadab Khan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) (Dacoity Affected Area), Jalaun at Orai has framed the charges against the applicant on 11th November, 2025, which is per se illegal. Along with the supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for the applicant has brought on record the order-sheet of the trial court between the period 28th October, 2025 to 24th March, 2026, which does not reflect that the trial court before framing charge against the applicant has complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 261 and 262 (2) B.N.S.S. It is further submitted that at the time of taking cognizance on the charge-sheet as well as at the time of framing charge against the applicant he was not in a position to egange any counsel. In such a situation, it was obligatory upon the trial court to comply with the provisions of Section 341 B.N.S.S. by providing legal aid to the applicant and also give sufficient time to him to file discharge application. However, such procedures known to law has not been adopted byt he trial court while passing the order framing charge against the applicant. On the above premise, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order framing charge against the applicant dated 11th November, 2025 clearly hits the mandatory provisions of Sections 230, 261, 262 (2) and 341 B.N.S.S. therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 4. On the other-hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that mere non-compliance of the provision of Section 230 B.N.S.S., no prejudice can be caused to an accused because at the time of framing of charge, the applicant was present before the trial court and the charges were read and explained to him and after that he himself claimed to be tried. It is further stated that present application has only been filed to delay the trial of the aforesaid criminal case pending before the trial court. 5. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. and gone through the records of the present criminal application. 6. Section 261 B.N.S.S. is a mandatory provision, which provides that in every condition a Magistrate or trial court shall satisfy himself that he has complied with the provisions of Section 230 B.N.S.S. However, order-sheet of the trial court reflects that no such satisfaction has been recorded by the trial court before framing charge against the applicant. The order-sheet further reflects that before framing of charge, neither the applicant has been granted opportunity of hearing to have his say in the matter nor has been granted time to file discharge applicant nor he has been provided any legal aid when he NA528 No. 3136 of 2026 2 was not in a position to engage any counsel. For free, fair and proper trial, it is fundamental right of any accused to put his defence before the trial court for which he must have been provided opportunity of hearing. 7. Under such circumstances, this Court finds that before framing of charge, the provisions contained in Section 230, 261, 262 92) and 341 B.N.S.S. have not been complied, therefore, the order of framing charge dated 11th November, 2025 is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, order dated 11th November, 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Jalaun at Orai in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2025 (State Vs. Shadab Khan & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 516 of 2025 under Sections 74, 115 (2), 324 (6), 310 (2) 191 (2), 351 (2), 308 (2), 317 (3) B.N.S. and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Police Station-Kotwali Orai, District jalaun, is set aside qua applicant, namely, Shadab Khan only. 9. It is provided that the applicant shall file discharge application supported by such documents as he may be advised along with a certified copy of this order before the trial court within fifteen days from today. On such application being made, the trial court shall considered and decide the same, strictly in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within fifteen days thereafter after affording opportunity of hearing to both parties. After disposal of such discharge application, the trial court shall pass a fresh order for framing charge against the applicant, strictly in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the applicant preferably within 15 days thereafter. 10. The present criminal application is allowed subject to the observations/direction made above. September 29, 2026 Sushil/- NA528 No. 3136 of 2026 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad