CRLR/293/2026 of YAHIYA AND ANOTEHR Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 293 of 2026 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present Criminal Revision, filed under Sections 438/442 of the B.N.S.S., challenges the impugned judgment and order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Meerut, in Sessions Trial No. 785 of 2025 (State vs. Yahaya and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0078 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 307, 504, and 506 I.P.C., and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Lisari Gate, District Meerut, whereby the discharge application filed by the revisionists was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 is patently illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is further contended that the said order is unreasoned and non- speaking. 4. It has been submitted that the FIR was lodged on the date of the incident, i.e., 26.02.2024, against 10–15 unknown persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. The revisionists were not named in the FIR. According to the allegations in the FIR, no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out. It is further contended that, as per the injury report, the injured Neeraj Kumar sustained only simple injuries. 5. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionists. It is contended that the same has been filed on incorrect facts. It is further submitted that no injury was caused by a knife. Reliance has been placed on the statement of the doctor who medically examined the injured persons on 26.02.2024. The doctor stated that he was posted on emergency duty at the P.H.C., District Hospital, Meerut. On that date, Head Constable Sanjay Kumar and Head Constable Neeraj Kumar were medically examined by him. Head Constable Sanjay Kumar sustained three injuries, while Head Constable Neeraj Kumar sustained simple injuries. All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt objects. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Jay Prakash Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jay Prakash Yadav Yahiya And Anotehr .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6. In the present case, the injured persons are police personnel who sustained injuries in the alleged incident. As per the FIR, 10–15 persons present at the spot assaulted them with legs and fists, hurled abuses, and one of them attempted to attack with a knife. The injured persons have stated that they fell to the ground and saved themselves from the knife attack. It is not mentioned in the FIR that they suffered any incised wound. Therefore, the contention of the revisionists that no incised injury was sustained does not, at this stage, demolish the prosecution case. 7. The investigation has revealed that the revisionists were present at the spot and the police personnel were assaulted with legs, fists, and hard blunt objects, which is corroborated by the nature of the injuries and the medical evidence on record. 8. So far as the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is concerned, the intention of the accused and the effect of the injuries are matters to be considered during trial on the basis of evidence. At the stage of discharge, a meticulous appreciation of evidence is neither warranted nor permissible. 9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. The criminal revision is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. February 13, 2026 M. Tarik CRLR No. 293 of 2026 2 (Abdul Shahid,J.)