The Allahabad High Court has ruled that an accused facing a serious criminal trial cannot be denied the opportunity to produce defence witnesses unless the request is clearly intended to delay proceedings or misuse the process of law.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh passed the order while allowing an application filed by Inderpal Singh, who is facing trial in a 2016 murder case in Rampur.
Background of the Case
The case arises out of Case Crime No. 339 of 2016 registered at Swar Police Station in Rampur district under Sections 302, 342, 506 and 34 of the IPC along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
According to the plea before the High Court, the alleged incident took place on the night of July 26, 2016. The accused claimed that he was not present in India at the time and had travelled to Bangkok on the same date. His counsel argued that passport entries, immigration stamps and shopping receipts from Thailand supported his claim of alibi.
After prosecution evidence concluded and the accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC was recorded, the applicant moved an application seeking summoning of officials from the Passport Office in Dehradun and the Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, to verify the travel records.
However, the Sessions Judge, Rampur rejected the request on June 2, 2025, prompting the accused to move the High Court under Section 528 BNSS.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the State opposed the plea and argued that the defence application was filed only to delay the trial, which has remained pending since 2016.
The High Court, however, noted that Section 233 CrPC gives an accused a substantive right to lead defence evidence after prosecution evidence is over. The bench observed that a trial court can refuse such a request only if it is made “for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice.”
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh stated that the right to summon defence witnesses is part of a fair trial and flows from the principle of hearing both sides.
“The right belongs to the accused and not to the court concerned,” the bench observed while explaining the limited scope of judicial interference under Section 233 CrPC.
The Court further held that the trial court had not recorded any finding that the defence request was intended to delay proceedings or defeat justice.
Decision
Setting aside the June 2, 2025 order of the Sessions Judge, the High Court allowed the application and directed the accused to file a fresh plea before the trial court within 15 days seeking issuance of summons to the proposed defence witnesses.
The Court also directed the trial court to consider the request in accordance with law and avoid granting unnecessary adjournments to either side during the trial.
Case Details
Case Title: Inderpal Singh vs State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 21342 of 2025
Judge: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
Decision Date: May 1, 2026
