PRAYAGRAJ, Jan. 3 -- The Allahabad high court has come down heavily on a trial court of Meerut for not waiting for a copy of the order passed by the Apex court on a special leave petition (SLP) filed in the related matter. While commenting on the trial court's decision, the high court said had the additional sessions judge of Meerut postponed the case for a day or two to examine the order passed by the Supreme Court and act accordingly, the "heavens wouldn't have fallen". Allowing the criminal revision petition filed by Hamid and two others on December 19, 2025, a single bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra said it does not approve of the approach of the trial court, which acted too hastily in the case. The bench also rejected the trial court's summons order. According to the case, a criminal revision petition was filed by Hamid, Akram, and Danish in September 2024, challenging the sessions court's order dated August 17, 2024 under which the trial court had issued summons to them to face trial in a case registered in Meerut. The case was related to a double murder in May 2020. After investigation, police removed the names of Hamid and two other applicants from the chargesheet. However, the prosecution filed an application to include these three in the trial, which the trial court accepted and issued summons against the accused. During the hearing in the high court, the petitioners' lawyer argued that the trial court acted with undue haste and, despite knowing that an special leave petition (SLP) against the order was pending before the Supreme Court on August 9, 2024, it disposed of the application on August 14, 2024, the date on which the SLP was decided. The Supreme Court order, however, was uploaded on its website on August 17. Despite this, the trial court passed the impugned (under challenge) order. The prosecution's lawyer argued that it was a 'double murder' case and the names of the accused were mentioned in the main case. He argued that removing the names based solely on the statements of independent witnesses was incorrect. He contended that the accused had directly fired the shots, and therefore, they must be prosecuted. The court expressed its displeasure, stating that such haste was unwarranted. The high court also observed that the courts should not do anything that diminishes people's faith in this "sacred institution"....