Allahabad High Court
Rohit Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 March, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:65437 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1469 of 2025 Rohit Sharma .....Petitioner(s) Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mushir Khan Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for State.
2. The present habeas corpus writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer set aside the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge/FTC Judge, (Crime Against Women), district-Budaun in Session Trial No.308/2012 (State Vs. Rohit Sharma and others) in Case Crime No.08/2010 U/s 366 and 376 I.P.C., Police Station-Bilsi, District-Budaun and also a direction to the court of Additional Session Judge/FTC Judge, (Crime Against Women), District-Budaun to consolidate the Session Case No.308/2012 and Session Case No.326/2013 and 159/2015, pending in the court of Additional Session Judge/ FTC Judge ( Crime Against Women) District Budaun.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that FIR in Case Crime No. 08 of 2010, under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, at Police Station Bilsi, District Budaun, was registered against the petitioner and his brother. It is further submitted that another FIR, being Case Crime No. 1038 of 2010, under Sections 167, 182, 195, 211, 388, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 71 of the Information Technology Act, was lodged by the father of the petitioner.
4. It is contended that both FIRs arise out of the same transaction. In Case Crime No. 08 of 2010, the allegation is that certain false messages were sent by using/abducting the mobile phone of the informant, and in respect thereof, the second FIR came to be lodged. Learned counsel submits that the true facts can only be ascertained if both the cases are tried together. It is further submitted that an application for consolidation of trials was moved before the concerned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 3, Budaun, in Sessions Trial No. 308 of 2012; however, the same was rejected vide order dated 13.11.2024.
5. Sri K.K. Gupta, learned AGA, has submitted that a perusal of both the FIRs clearly indicates that the allegations are distinct. The accused persons, as well as the time and place of occurrence, are different in both the cases. It is further submitted that the provisions relating to joint trial/consolidation are applicable only when the offences arise out of the same transaction, which is not the case here.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. Upon perusal of both the FIRs, this Court finds that the allegations are entirely different and do not arise out of the same transaction. There is no justification for consolidation of the trials arising out of the aforesaid FIRs. Accordingly, the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the court below does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
March 28, 2026
Mukesh