RAJEEV KUMAR AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

         APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1258 of 2026

Rajeev Kumar And 3 Others
                                                         .....Applicant(s)
                                Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                            .....Opposite
                                                                  Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)     : Ashok Kumar Singh, Pratibha Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A., Nitinjay Pandey, Ravindra
                               Kumar Dwivedi

Court No. - 82
               HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anil Kumar
Srivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Nijinjay Pandey,
Advocate and Sri Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
opposite party. 2 and Sri Vinay Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by
the applicant for quashing the impugned order dated 05.12.2025
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Etah in S.T. No. 469 of 2013
arising out of Case Crime No. 299 of 2009.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Court, vide
order dated 21.12.2022, had granted interim protection to the
applicant. It is contended that the learned trial court, without properly
appreciating the said order, proceeded with the matter and fixed the
case on the same day post-lunch session for arguments on behalf of
the prosecution. It is thus argued that the impugned order has been
passed in disregard of the order of this Court and is liable to be set
aside.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer and submitted
that the order dated 21.12.2022 passed by this Court did not stay the
proceedings of the trial, but only granted protection from coercive
measures. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has acted
within its jurisdiction in proceeding with the trial.

5. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the
controversy revolves around the interpretation of the interim order
                                                                                       NA528 No. 1258 of 2026
                                                                 2

                                    dated 21.12.2022 passed by this Court.

                                    6. A perusal of the said order indicates that this Court had granted
                                    protection to the applicant from coercive action; however, there is no
                                    specific direction staying further proceedings of the trial. It is well
                                    settled that unless there is a clear and specific order staying the
                                    proceedings of the trial, the trial court is not precluded from
                                    proceeding with the matter in accordance with law. Grant of
                                    protection from coercive action cannot be construed as a stay of trial
                                    proceedings.

                                    7. In the present case, the learned trial court, having not been
                                    restrained by any specific order of stay, has rightly proceeded with
                                    the matter and fixed the case for arguments. No illegality or
                                    jurisdictional error is found in the impugned order.

                                    8. The contention of the applicant that the trial court has acted in
                                    violation of the order of this Court is, therefore, misconceived and
                                    devoid of merit.

                                    9. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to
                                    interfere with the impugned order in exercise of powers under Section
                                    528 BNSS.

                                    10. In view of aforesaid discussion, the instant application is hereby
                                    dismissed.
                                    February 18, 2026
                                    Israr
                                                                               (Padam Narain Mishra,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ISRAR AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad