The Allahabad High Court has allowed the application filed under Section 528 BNSS by Inderpal Singh and set aside the order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the Session Judge, Rampur in Session Trial No. 415 of 2016. Justice Vivek Kumar Singh held that the trial court erred in rejecting the applicant’s application under Section 233 CrPC / 256 BNSS for summoning defence witnesses to prove his alibi.
The applicant is facing trial under Sections 302, 342, 506, 34 IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act in Case Crime No. 339 of 2016, Police Station Swar, District Rampur, which carries punishment up to death penalty. The incident allegedly occurred on 26.07.2016 at 2330 hours. The applicant claimed that at the relevant time he was not in India; he had boarded a flight on 26.07.2016 and reached Bangkok the same day, returning to India on 30.07.2016. He placed on record his passport showing arrival stamp at Bangkok and shopping receipts from Thailand.
After the prosecution examined nine witnesses and the applicant’s statement under Section 313 CrPC was recorded, he moved an application on 21.04.2025 seeking to summon the concerned officer from the Passport Office, Dehradun and the concerned officer from the Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi as defence witnesses to prove the passport entries and immigration stamps establishing his departure from and return to India. The trial court rejected the application vide order dated 02.06.2025.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that Section 233 CrPC forms an essential part of a sessions trial and guarantees the accused the right to enter upon his defence and adduce evidence after the prosecution evidence is complete. The provision mandates that if the accused applies for issuance of process for compelling attendance of any witness, the court shall issue such process unless it records reasons that the application is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice.
The Court clarified that unlike Section 311 CrPC (where power lies with the court), under Section 233 CrPC the right belongs to the accused and the court’s interference is limited. The trial court cannot refuse the application except on the three specified grounds and must record reasons. In the present case, the trial court did not reject the application on any of these grounds. Refusal to examine defence witnesses in such circumstances would violate the fundamental right of fair trial.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the application. The applicant was directed to move a fresh application before the trial court within 15 days for issuance of process to the defence witnesses mentioned in the earlier application dated 21.04.2025. The trial court was directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law without granting undue adjournments to either party.
Case Title: Inderpal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 21342 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Singh, J.
Date of Order: 01st May, 2026
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 