# Jailendra Singh & Anr. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 844
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2278 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jailendra-singh-anr-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48853
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
Of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - Power to
proceed against other persons appearing
to be guilty of offence - doctrine "judex
damnatur cum nocens absolvitur" (Judge
7 All. Jailendra Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
845
is condemned when guilty is acquitted)- A
person not named in the FIR or a person
though named in the FIR but has not been
charge-sheeted or a person who has been
discharged
can
be
summoned
under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. provided during trial
some
evidence
surfaces
against
the
proposed accused - Section 319 of the
Cr.P.C. is meant to rope in even those
persons who were not implicated when
the charge sheet was filed but during the
trial
the
Court
finds
that
sufficient
evidence has come on record to summon
them and face the trial (Para 12, 15)

Criminal
Law
-
Code
Of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - Evidence -
apart from evidence recorded during trial,
any material that has been received by the
court after cognizance is taken and before
the trial commences, can be utilised only
for corroboration and to support the
evidence recorded by the court to invoke
the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. -
'evidence' is thus, limited to the evidence
recorded during trial." - though only a
prima facie case is to be established from
the evidence led before the court not
necessarily tested on the anvil of CrossExamination, it requires much stronger
evidence than mere probability of his
complicity - Only where strong and cogent
evidence occurs against a person from the
evidence led before the court that such
power should be exercised and not in a
casual and cavalier manner (Para 10)

Revisionists named in the FIR & were also
assigned role in the incident but absolved by the
Investigating Officer - In the St.ment of the
first informant/O.P. No.2 u/s 161 Cr.P.C. names
of
the
revisionists
appeared
-
first
informant/O.P. No.2 in her St.ment recorded
before the Court named the revisionists who
were St.d to be present with fire arms on the
date of the incident and incessantly fired upon
the car of the first informant and injured both
the first informant and her driver - St.ment of
the first informant/injured/O.P. No.2 naming the
revisionists establishes the complicity of the
revisionists and unrebutted evidence can lead to
the conviction of the revisionists - ingredients of
exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
made out (Para 17)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :

## Text

844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on behalf of the Accused in support of the
plea that he was a juvenile.

(viii) If two views are possible on
the same evidence, the court should lean
in favour of holding the Accused to be a
juvenile in borderline cases. This is in
order to ensure that the benefit of the JJ
Act, 2015 is made applicable to the
juvenile in conflict with law. At the same
time, the Court should ensure that the JJ
Act, 2015 is not misused by persons to
escape
punishment
after
having
committed serious offences.

(ix) That when the determination
of age is on the basis of evidence such as
school records, it is necessary that the
same would have to be considered as per
Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act,
inasmuch as any public or official
document maintained in the discharge of
official duty would have greater credibility
than private documents.

(x) Any document which is in
consonance with public documents, such
as matriculation certificate, could be
accepted by the Court or the JJ Board
provided such public document is credible
and authentic as per the provisions of the
Indian Evidence Act viz., Section 35 and
other provisions.

(xi) Ossification Test cannot be
the sole criterion for age determination
and a mechanical view regarding the age
of a person cannot be adopted solely on
the
basis
of
medical
opinion
by
radiological examination. Such evidence
is not conclusive evidence but only a very
useful guiding factor to be considered in
the absence of documents mentioned in
Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015."

52. When the case in hand is
examined
in
the
light
of
aforesaid
principles
laid
down
regarding
the
parameters, in accordance with which the
claim regarding juvenility has to be
adjudicated the object and nature of the
claim of juvenility raised by an accused,
this Court does not find any good ground to
interfere
in
this
criminal
revision.
Revisionist has failed to discharge the
initial burden as observed in Abuzar
Hossain (Supra), and noted in subparagraph 39.2 of paragraph 28 in Rishipal
Singh Solanki (Supra). The claim of
revisionist does not appear to be bona fide
either.

53. In view of above, revision fails
and is liable to be dismissed.

54. It is accordingly dismissed.

55. Cost made easy.
----------
(2022)07ILR A844
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2278 of 2022

Jailendra Singh & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, Sri Syed Imran
Ibrahim, Sri Manish Tiwary (Senior Adv.)

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Ravish Kumar Singh, Sri Satyendra
Kumar Tripathi

Criminal
Law
-
Code
Of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - Power to
proceed against other persons appearing
to be guilty of offence - doctrine "judex
damnatur cum nocens absolvitur" (Judge
7 All. Jailendra Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
845
is condemned when guilty is acquitted)- A
person not named in the FIR or a person
though named in the FIR but has not been
charge-sheeted or a person who has been
discharged
can
be
summoned
under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. provided during trial
some
evidence
surfaces
against
the
proposed accused - Section 319 of the
Cr.P.C. is meant to rope in even those
persons who were not implicated when
the charge sheet was filed but during the
trial
the
Court
finds
that
sufficient
evidence has come on record to summon
them and face the trial (Para 12, 15)

Criminal
Law
-
Code
Of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - Evidence -
apart from evidence recorded during trial,
any material that has been received by the
court after cognizance is taken and before
the trial commences, can be utilised only
for corroboration and to support the
evidence recorded by the court to invoke
the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. -
'evidence' is thus, limited to the evidence
recorded during trial." - though only a
prima facie case is to be established from
the evidence led before the court not
necessarily tested on the anvil of CrossExamination, it requires much stronger
evidence than mere probability of his
complicity - Only where strong and cogent
evidence occurs against a person from the
evidence led before the court that such
power should be exercised and not in a
casual and cavalier manner (Para 10)

Revisionists named in the FIR & were also
assigned role in the incident but absolved by the
Investigating Officer - In the St.ment of the
first informant/O.P. No.2 u/s 161 Cr.P.C. names
of
the
revisionists
appeared
-
first
informant/O.P. No.2 in her St.ment recorded
before the Court named the revisionists who
were St.d to be present with fire arms on the
date of the incident and incessantly fired upon
the car of the first informant and injured both
the first informant and her driver - St.ment of
the first informant/injured/O.P. No.2 naming the
revisionists establishes the complicity of the
revisionists and unrebutted evidence can lead to
the conviction of the revisionists - ingredients of
exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
made out (Para 17)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :

1. Mohammad Ispahani Vs Yogendra Chandak &
ors. 2017 (16) SCC 226

2. Nahar Singh Vs The St. of U.P. & anr. 2022
Live Law (SC) 291

3. Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Pun. & ors. reported
in 2014 (3) SCC 92

4. Rajesh & ors. Vs St. of Har. [2019 (6) SCC
368]

5. Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Vs The St. of
U.P. & anr. [Cri. Appeal No. 990 of 2021, arising
out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6381 of 2020 decided on
13.9.2021

6. Saeeda Khatoon Arshi Vs St. of U.P. & anr.
reported in 2020 (2) SCC 323

7. Rampal Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.
2009(4) SCC 423

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Syed Imran
Ibrahim,
learned
counsel
for
the
revisionists,
the
learned A.G.A.
and
perused the record.

2. The present criminal revision has
been filed assailing the order dated
21.5.2022 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Varanasi in
S.T. No. 1164 of 2021 (State vs. Srinivas
and others) arising out of Case Crime No.
985 of 2018, under Sections 307, 504, 506
and 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Lanka, District
Varanasi whereby the application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the O.P.
No.2 has been allowed and the revisionists
846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have been summoned to face trial of Case
Crime No. 985 of 2018, under Sections
307, 504, 506 and 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Lanka,
District Varanasi.

3. It has been vehemently contended
by Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior
Counsel that the order impugned is patently
illegal and has been passed against the
settled principles of law and as such is not
sustainable. The learned Court below has
erred in law in omitting to consider the
settled position of law to the effect that to
summon an accused under Section 319
Cr.P.C. the evidence which has already
been tested once during the course of
investigation should not be the same and
there needs to be something more to enable
the Court to exercise the power under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. The revisionists are
lawyers by profession and practicing in the
District Court Varanasi and have been
implicated only in their professional
capacity. A dispute exists between the O.P.
No.2/first informant and one Kripa Shankar
Rai
and
the
revisionists
have
been
impleaded as accused only pre-emptively. It
is also contended that the exercise of power
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the Court
below is contrary to the law laid down by
the Apex Court in the case of S.
Mohammad
Ispahani
vs.
Yogendra
Chandak and others reported in 2017 (16)
SCC 226. Reliance is further placed on the
decisions of the Apex Court reported in
2019 (7) SCC 806; 2019 (4) SCC 342 and
2017 (7) SCC 706. It is accordingly prayed
that the revision be allowed and the order
dated 21.5.2022 be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2
has opposed the revision by submitting that
the order dated 21.5.2022 is just and proper
and warrants no interference by this Court.
Reliance is placed on the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Nahar Singh vs.
The State of U.P. and another reported
in 2022 Live Law (SC) 291.

5. In order to appreciate the rival
contentions it would be apt to briefly state
the facts of the case leading up to filing of
the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
by the opposite party and the exercise of
power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the
learned Court below. The genesis of the
case between the parties arises out of an
F.I.R. dated 20.9.2018 lodged by the O.P.
No.2 at 4:42 hours in respect of an incident
stated to have taken place on 19.9.2018 at
23:00 hours wherein it has been alleged
that while she was coming back to her
house from work 8 persons apprehended
her in her car being driven by her driver.
The eight persons incessantly fired at her
vehicle in which both she and her driver
sustained injuries. The O.P. No.2 has stated
to have identified four persons (including
the revisionist herein) out of the eight
persons. The Investigating Officer on
20.9.2018 (i.e. the date of lodging the
F.I.R.) recorded the statement of the first
informant/Opposite Party No.2 in which
the
names
of
the
revisionists
were
mentioned. On 24.9.2018 the statements of
son, husband and elder brother-in-law were
got recorded and none of the witnesses
mentioned the names of the revisionists.
The factum of the existence of long
standing enmity with one Srinivas Singh
(co-accused) was stated by the witnesses.
On 21.10.2018 the statement of the injured
driver of the O.P. No.2 was also got
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in
which he also stated the names of the
revisionists.
On
21.12.2018
the
Investigating Officer, on the basis of CCTV
footage and mobile location etc., concluded
that the complicity of the revisionists in the
alleged incident was not true and removed
7 All. Jailendra Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
847
their names after confronting the O.P. No.2
of the alibi of the revisionists. On
14.1.2019 the second statement of the O.P.
No.2 was also got recorded wherein she
reiterated
her
earlier
statement.
The
Investigating
Officer
on
04.11.2019
submitted charge sheet against three
persons, the names of the revisionists did
not find place in the charge sheet dated
04.11.2019. On 5.5.2022 the examination
in chief commenced and the O.P. No.2 in
her depositions as PW-1, merely repeated
her version as stated in the FIR, on
10.5.2022 the O.P. No.2 moved an
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
before the Court below with a prayer to
summon the revisionists and co-accused
Kripa Shankar Rai. The said application
has been allowed by the impugned order
dated 21.5.2022 and the revisionists have
been summoned to face trial.

6. I have heard the learned counsels
for the parties and have perused the record.

7. The principles for exercise of power
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by Criminal Courts
are well settled. The Constitution Bench of
the Apex Court in Hardeep Singh vs. State
of Punjab and others reported in 2014 (3)
SCC 92 has elaborately considered all
contours of Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Apex
court held that power under Section 319
Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and extra-ordinary
power which has to be exercised sparingly.
The Court further held that the test that has to
be applied is one which is more than prima
facie case as exercised at the time of framing
of charge, but short of satisfaction to an
extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted,
would lead to conviction. In the judgement
their Lordships held as under:-

"105. Power under Section 319
Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra-
rdinary power. It is to be exercised
sparingly and only in those cases where
the circumstances of the case so warrant.
It is not to be 6 Page 65exercised because
the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of
the opinion that some other person may
also be guilty of committing that offence.
Only where strong and cogent evidence
occurs against a person from the
evidence led before the court that such
power should be exercised and not in a
casual and cavalier manner.

106. Thus, we hold that though
only a prima facie case is to be
established from the evidence led before
the court not necessarily tested on the
anvil of Cross-Examination, it requires
much
stronger
evidence
than
mere
probability of his complicity. The test that
has to be applied is one which is more
than prima facie case as exercised at the
time of framing of charge, but short of
satisfaction
to
an
extent
that
the
evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead
to conviction. In the absence of such
satisfaction, the court should refrain from
exercising power under Section 319
Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the
purpose of providing if ''it appears from
the evidence that any person not being
the accused has committed any offence' is
clear from the words "for which such
person could be tried together with the
accused." The words used are not ''for
which such person could be convicted'.
There, is therefore, no scope for the Court
acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form
any opinion as to the guilt of the
accused."

8. A two judge Bench of the Apex
Court again reiterated the same ratio in
Rajesh and others vs. State of Haryana
[2019 (6) SCC 368]; Ramesh Chandra
Srivastava vs. The State of U.P. and
848 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
another [Cri. Appeal No. 990 of 2021,
arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6381 of
2020 decided on 13.9.2021.

9. The question as to in what
situations the power under the section can
be exercised in respect of persons not
named in the FIR or named in the FIR but
not charge-sheeted or discharged (as in
the case at hand) was also considered and
it was held that a person whose name
does not appear in the FIR or in the
charge sheet or whose name appears in
the FIR and not in the charge-sheet can
still be summoned by the Court provided
the conditions under the section stand
fulfilled. The Apex Court in the case
Hardeep Singh (Supra) observed as
under:-

"111. Even the Constitution
Bench in Dharam Pal (CB) has held that
the Sessions Court can also exercise its
original jurisdiction and summon a
person as an accused in case his name
appears in Column 2 of the chargesheet,
once the case had been committed to it. It
means that a person whose name does not
appear even in the FIR or in the
chargesheet or whose name appears in
the FIR and not in the main part of the
chargesheet but in Column 2 and has not
been summoned as an accused in exercise
of the powers under Section 193 Cr.P.C.
can still be summoned by the court,
provided the court is satisfied that the
conditions provided in the said statutory
provisions stand fulfilled.

117.6. A person not named in
the FIR or a person though named in the
FIR but has not been charge-sheeted or a
person who has been discharged can be
summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
provided from the evidence it appears
that such person can be tried along with
the
accused
already
facing
trial.
However, in so far as an accused who has
been
discharged
is
concerned
the
requirement
of
Sections
300
and
398Cr.P.C. has to be complied with
before he can be summoned afresh."

10. The word ''evidence' as used under
Section 319(1) of Cr.P.C. was also
considered in Hardeep Singh (Supra) and
the Court observed as under:-

"84.
The
word
"evidence"
therefore has to be understood in its wider
sense both at the stage of trial and, as
discussed earlier, even at the stage of
inquiry, as used under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
The court, therefore, should be understood
to have the power to proceed against any
person after summoning him on the basis of
any such material as brought forth before
it. The duty and obligation of the court
becomes more onerous to invoke such
powers cautiously on such material after
evidence has been led during trial.

85. In view of the discussion
made
and
the
conclusion
drawn
hereinabove, the answer to the aforesaid
question posed is that apart from evidence
recorded during trial, any material that has
been received by the court after cognizance
is taken and before the trial commences,
can be utilised only for corroboration and
to support the evidence recorded by the
court to invoke the power under Section
319 Cr.P.C. The ''evidence' is thus, limited
to the evidence recorded during trial."

11. The principles with regard to
exercise of power by the Court to summon
an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. were
reiterated in S. Mohammed Ispahani
(supra) and it was held that the power
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon even
those persons who are not named in the
7 All. Jailendra Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
849
charge-sheet to appear and face trial is
unquestionable. The Court observed as
under:-

"28. Insofar as power of the
Court under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to
summon even those persons who are not
named in the charge sheet to appear and
face trial is concerned, the same is
unquestionable. Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.
is meant to rope in even those persons who
were not implicated when the charge sheet
was filed but during the trial the Court
finds that sufficient evidence has come on
record to summon them and face the trial.
In Hardeep Singh's case, the Constitution
Bench of this Court has settled the law in
this
behalf
with
authoritative
pronouncement,
thereby
removing
the
cobweb which had been created while
interpreting this provision earlier. As far as
object behind Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. is
concerned, the Court had highlighted the
same as under:

"19. The court is sole repository
of justice and a duty is cast upon it to
uphold the rule of law and, therefore, it will
be inappropriate to deny the existence of
such powers with the courts in our criminal
justice system where it is not uncommon
that the real accused, at times, get away by
manipulating the investigating and/or the
prosecuting agency. The desire to avoid
trial is so strong that an accused makes
efforts at times to get himself absolved even
at the stage of investigation or inquiry even
though he may be connected with the
commission of the offence."

12. The power to proceed against
persons named in FIR with specific
allegations against them, but not chargesheeted was reiterated in Rajesh and
others vs. State of Haryana reported in
2019 (6) SCC 368 and it was held that
persons named in the FIR but not
implicated in the charge-sheet can be
summoned to face trial, provided during
trial some evidence surfaces against the
proposed accused.

13. In Saeeda Khatoon Arshi vs.
State of U.P. and another reported in 2020
(2) SCC 323 it was held that it is the duty
of the Court to give full effect to the words
used by the legislature so as to encompass
any situation which the Court may have to
tackle while proceeding to try an offence
and not allow a person who deserves to be
tried to go scot-free by being not arraigned
in the trial in spite of the possibility of his
complicity which can be gathered from the
documents presented by the prosecution.

14. The presumption of innocence is
the general law of the land as every man is
presumed to be innocent unless proven to
be guilty. Alternatively, certain statutory
presumptions in relation to certain class of
offences have been raised against the
accused whereby the presumption of guilt
prevails till the accused discharges his
burden upon an onus being cast upon him
under the law to prove himself to be
innocent. The entire effort is not to allow
the real perpetrator of an offence to get
away unpunished. The provision of Section
319 Cr.P.C. has been incorporated in the
Code of Criminal Procedure in furtherance
of the said objective.

15. Section 319 Cr.P.C. springs out of
the doctrine "judex damnatur cum nocens
absolvitur" (Judge is condemned when
guilty is acquitted) and this doctrine must
be used as a Beacon
Light while
understanding
the
ambit
and
spirit
underlying the enactment of Section 319
Cr.P.C. It is the duty of the Court to do
justice by punishing the real culprit, where
850 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the investigating agency for any reason
does not array one of the real culprits as an
accused, the Court is not powerless in
calling the said accused to face trial.
Section 319 Cr.P.C. allows the Court to
proceed against any person who is not an
accused in a case before it. Thus, the person
against whom summons are issued in
exercise of such powers has to be
necessarily not be an accused already
facing trial. He can either be a person
named in the column 2 of the charge-sheet
filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. or a person
whose name has been disclosed in any
material before the Court that is to be
considered for the purpose of trying the
offence, but not investigated. He has to be a
person whose complicity may be indicated
and connected with the commission of the
offence.

16. The Court is the sole repository of
justice and a duty is cast upon it to uphold
the rule of law and therefore, it will be
inappropriate to deny the existence of such
powers with the Courts in our criminal
justice system where it is not uncommon
that the real accused at times, get away by
manipulating the investigation and/or the
prosecuting agency. The desire to avoid
trial is so strong that an accused makes
efforts at times to get himself absolved
even at the stage of investigation or enquiry
even though he may be connected with the
commission of the offence.

17. Now applying the ratio of the
various decisions discussed above to the
case at hand, the Court finds that the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.6, Varanasi while exercising the powers
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the
revisionists who though were named in the
FIR but absolved by the Investigating
Officer has taken note of the fact that the
revisionists were named in the FIR dated
20.9.2018 and were also assigned a role in
the incident. In the statement of the first
informant/O.P.
No.2
recorded
under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 20.9.2018 and
14.1.2019 the names of the revisionists has
appeared. In the statement of driver of the
first informant/O.P. No.2, who was also
injured in the incident, the name of the
revisionists
has
surfaced.
The
first
informant/O.P. No.2 in her statement
recorded before the Court in the capacity of
PW-1 has named the revisionists who were
stated to be present with fire arms on the
date of the incident and incessantly fired
upon the car of the first informant and
injured both the first informant and her
driver. The Court below has opined that the
statement of the first informant/injured/O.P.
No.2 naming the revisionists establishes the
complicity
of
the
revisionists
and
unrebutted evidence can lead to the
conviction of the revisionists. Thus, the
ingredients of exercise of power under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. in the case at hand are
made out. Accordingly, the Court below
upon considering the settled legal position
regarding the exercise of powers under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. has formed the view on
the basis of the statement of the PW1/Informant/injured Opposite Party No.2
that the revisionists be tried together with
the other accused and for the said purpose
has summoned the revisionists.

18. The Apex Court in the case of
Rampal Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.
and another reported in 2009(4) SCC 423
while dealing with similar circumstances
observed as under:-

"17. The ingredients of Section
319 are unambiguous and indicate that
where in the course of inquiry into, or trial
of, an offence, it appears from the evidence
7 All. Pankaj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
851
that any person not being the accused has
committed any offence, for which such
person could be tried together with the
accused, the Court may proceed against
such person for the offence he has
committed.

18. All that is required by the
Court for invoking its powers under Section
319 Cr.P.C.is to be satisfied that from the
evidence adduced before it, a person
against whom no charge had been framed,
but whose complicity appears to be clear,
should be tried together with the accused.
It is also clear that the discretion is left to
the Court to take a decision on the matter.

19. In the instant case, although,
the appellants were named in the F.I.R.,
they were not named as accused in the
charge-sheet during the trial. However,
P.W.1 in his evidence, has named the
appellants as persons who were involved in
the incident causing the death of Brijesh
Kumar Singh and injuries to Manvender
Singh. Despite the above, the trial Court,
on two separate occasions, rejected the
prayer made by the Respondent No.2 for
summoning the appellants herein under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. The High Court, after
considering the evidence of P.W.1, Kamlesh
Singh, thought it necessary for the
appellants to be summoned."

19. In view of the above, I do not find
any error in the order dated 21.5.2022 of
the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Court
No.6,
Varanasi,
allowing
the
application of the O.P. No.2 under Section
319 Cr.P.C.and summoning the revisionists
to face the trial along with other accused.

20. The criminal revision has no merit
and is, accordingly, dismissed leaving it
open for the revisionists to avail remedy
available to them under the law.
----------
(2022)07ILR A851
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2638 of 2022

Pankaj Kumar Yadav ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ramesh Kumar Saxena, Sri Dashrath Lal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Hari Bans Singh

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 167(2) (a)(ii) - Statutory
Bail - if charge-sheet against the accused
is not filed within stipulated period of time
and before filing the charge-sheet if
accused applied for statutory bail under
Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. then, he has to be
released on bail irrespective of the fact
that whether his bail application pending
at the time of subsequent filing of the
chargesheet - The right to be released on
default
bail
continues
to
remain
enforceable if the accused has applied for
such bail, notwithstanding subsequent
filing of the chargesheet or filing of the
chargesheet during the interregnum when
challenge to the rejection of the bail
application is pending before a higher
Court - for availing the benefit u/s 167(2)
CrP.C., it is necessary to apply bail before
submission of charge-sheet - if accused
fails to apply bail before submission of
charge-sheet then he cannot be benefited
under Section 167(2) CrP.C. (Para 12, 14)

Revisionist arrested on 16.04.2022 for offence
u/s 308, 323, 504, 452 IPC - none of the
offence punishable for more than seven years -
sixty days from the date of arrest expired on
15.06.2022 (after excluding first date of remand