ABHAY NATH CHAUBEY vs STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS Advocate - G.A., ,SURAJ KUMAR SINGH — NA528/12930/2026

Case under Andhra State Act Section 120-B,43-120-B. Disposed: -- on 07th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 31-Mar-2026

CNR: UPHC011712022026

Filing Number

NA528/

Filing Date

23-Mar-2026

Registration No

NA528/12930/2026

Registration Date

26-Mar-2026

Judge

Chawan Prakash

Coram

Chawan Prakash

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

APPLICATION ( 401500 )

Sub-Category

Miscellaneous under the Head of Crl. Misc. Applications ( 90 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Misc.

Decision Date

07-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--

Last updated 24-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Andhra State Act Section 120-B,43-120-B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ABHAY NATH CHAUBEY

    Adv. UPENDRA UPADHYAY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS Advocate - G.A., ,SURAJ KUMAR SINGH

  2. 2.RAJU BIHARI ALIAS NAGENDRA

    Adv. SURAJ KUMAR SINGH

  3. 3.AJAY SINGH ALIAS AJAY MARDAH

    Adv. SURAJ KUMAR SINGH

  4. 4.SHANI SINGH

    Adv. SURAJ KUMAR SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Apr-2026

    —

    Chawan Prakash

  3. 07-Apr-2026

    Chawan PrakashView PDF

    The Allahabad High Court allowed the application and set aside the trial court's order rejecting the prosecution's request to examine witness Chhabiraj Pandey. The court held that the prosecution has discretion to call witnesses essential for proving the case, and Pandey—a panch witness whose statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC during a CBI-led investigation into the applicant's father's murder—was necessary and essential for just decision despite his name being omitted from the charge sheet's witness list. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 07-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 23-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. NA528/12930/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Allahabad High Court allowed the application and set aside the trial court's order rejecting the prosecution's request to examine witness Chhabiraj Pandey. The court held that the prosecution has discretion to call witnesses essential for proving the case, and Pandey—a panch witness whose statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC during a CBI-led investigation into the applicant's father's murder—was necessary and essential for just decision despite his name being omitted from the charge sheet's witness list. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case