Allahabad High Court
/10632/2025 of RAJESH KUMAR SINGH @ BABLU SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND 5 OTHERS on 19 November 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10632 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J. 1. Heard. 2. In pursuance to the order dated 14.11.2025, Sri Nitish Kumar Tiwari, C.O. City, Ambedkar Nagar is present in Court. 3. The appearance
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10632 of 2025
Court No. - 11
HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.
HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard.
2. In pursuance to the order dated 14.11.2025, Sri Nitish Kumar Tiwari, C.O. City, Ambedkar Nagar is present in Court.
3. The appearance of respondent no.4 had been required by this Court considering the averments as have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as recorded in the order dated 14.11.2025.
4. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 14.11.2025 is reproduced below:- "Heard. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after lodging of the First Information Report and a charge sheet having been submitted as specifically admitted by the learned AGA on the basis of instructions, respondents- authority are now requiring the petitioner to produce the car. Contention is that once the charge sheet has already been submitted consequently, without the order of the learned Magistrate, no such order could have been passed requiring the petitioner to produce the car and as such, it is apparent that the respondents-authority have patently proceeded in gross violation of the law. Considering the aforesaid, let respondent no. 4 i.e Circle Officer, District Ambedkar Nagar appear in person before this Court along with records to assist the Court and to indicate as to how despite the charge sheet having been submitted, he now requires the petitioner to produce the car as indicated Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pankaj Dheer Singh Rana, Ajay Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Rajesh Kumar Singh @ Bablu Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s)
in the writ petition. List this case on 19.11.2025."
5. Today, learned AGA on the basis of instructions given by Sri Nitish Kumar Tiwari, C.O. City Ambedkar Nagar, states that subsequent to submission of the charge sheet, the petitioner had filed an application dated 6/7.08.2025 for the purpose of investigation. In pursuance thereof, the car of the petitioner had been requisitioned.
6. However, learned AGA states that once the charge sheet has been submitted, consequently, there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to call upon the petitioner to produce the car and henceforth unless and until the learned Court itself directs so the petitioner would not be required to produce the car.
7. The aforesaid statement is recorded and the writ petition is disposed of. November 19, 2025 A. Katiyar CRLP No. 10632 of 2025 2 (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench