SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(All) 152

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AVNISH SAXENA
Vijendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Divyanshu Pathak, Hemant Shukla
For the Respondent: G.A.

JUDGMENT :

AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1. Learned A.G.A. has filed the counter affidavit. Sri Shive Datta Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 appears and files vakalatnama as well as the counter affidavit. The same are taken on record.

2. Sri Divyanshu Pathak, learned counsel for the accused-applicant appears and submits that he does not want to file rejoinder affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit filed by the State as well as the opposite party no.4. He submits that sole ground of moving the present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is the framing of charge by the trial court without the mandatory compliance of Section 230 B.N.S.S., which mandates that the copy of police report and other documents shall be provided to the accused-applicant and further submits that the order of taking cognizance dated 06.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge POCSO Act, Etawah in Special Case No.22 of 2025 (State of U.P. Vs. Vijendra Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No.111 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 352, 65(1) B.N.S. and Sections 3/4(2) of POCSO Act as well as Sections 3(1)Dha, 3(2)5 of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Usarahar District Etawah, has not made any mention in the order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top