# Ravindra Kumar Verma @ R.K. Verma & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 461 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2025-08-26 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 12727 of 2024 - **Bench:** Shekhar Kumar Yadav - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravindra-kumar-verma-r-k-verma-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53706 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote G.A., Manoj Kumar Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to whether trial court was justified in exercising its jurisdiction to frame charge u/s 308 IPC against revisionist, despite investigation materials indicating only grievous hurt and whether such framing of charge suffers from illegality, perversity or lack of judicial mind, thereby warranting interference under revisional jurisdiction. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 323, 504, 308 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 161 - Against framing of charge - Initially NCR was lodged on 20.02.2020 against revisionist, which was subsequently converted into FIR on 12.04.2020 u/s 323, 504 and 325 IPC - Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet for said offences was submitted and revisionist appeared before trial court and was granted bail - During consideration of charge, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 18.04.2025, proceeded to frame charges not only u/s 323 and 504 IPC but also u/s 308 IPC on basis of medical opinion indicating fracture of nasal spine alleged to have been caused by revisionist with danda - Aggrieved thereby, revisionist preferred instant criminal revision seeking quashing of said order, pleading lack of intention or knowledge to attract ingredients of Section 308 IPC and contending that case falls within purview of Section 325 IPC only. ## Text 8 All. Ravindra Kumar Verma @ R.K. Verma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 461 ---------- (2025) 8 ILRA 461 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.08.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. Criminal Appeal No. 12727 of 2024 Ravindra Kumar Verma @ R.K. Verma & Anr. ...Appellants Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Pankaj Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for the Respondents: G.A., Manoj Kumar Issue for Consideration The matter pertains to the cheating and forgery of the documents-The appellants falsely implicated with the allegations that The apellants along with co-accused opened the Osam Infra Project company, deposited the money of the informant and others and prepared forged documents. Headnotes Criminal law-SC/ST Act-S. 14A(2),3(2)(V) -Indian Penal Code,1860Ss. 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471,34, 120-B, 504, 506-No new ground to enlarge the appellant on bail -no illegality or perversity in the impugned order-Appeal dismissed. Held The court found no new ground for the bail after considering the facts and circumstances offence nature(fraud/forgery) , evidence ,accused complicity, punishment severity, criminal history of 17 cases-Appeal dismissedbail rejected. (E-6) List of Acts SC/ST Act,1986, Indian Penal Code, 1860 List of Keywords Complicity, offence, fraud , forgery ,criminal history. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12727 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 26.08.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Ravindra Kumar Verma @ R.K. Verma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. Appearances for Parties Adv. for Appellant(s): Pankaj Kumar Dwivedi Advs. for Respondent(s): G.A.,Manoj Kumar (Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA as well as perused the entire record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant- Ravindra Kumar Verma @ R.K. Verma and Rajeev Kumar Prajapati @ Rajeev Prajapati to set aside the impugned bail rejection order dated 17.10.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Varanasi in Bail Application No.3540 of 2024 in Case Crime No. 354 of 2021, under sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 34, 120-B, 504, 506 IPC & 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Cantt, District- Varanasi 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. There are much contradiction in the version of FIR, 462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES statement of the informant and other persons. The appellant is languishing in jail since 22.08.2021. Further submission is that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the appellants are the main accused persons along with other co-accused persons open the Osam Infra Project Company, deposited the money of informant and other persons. They also prepare forged documents. The appellants are having the criminal history of 17 cases. In this way, the complicity of the appellants in forgery with the informant and other persons is made out, therefore, the appellants are not entitled for bail. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the statement of the injured as recorded before his death, there is no new ground to enlarge the appellant on bail. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is, hereby, dismissed. ---------- (2025) 8 ILRA 462 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.08.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Criminal Revision No. 2619 of 2025 Abid ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Revisionist: Rajiv Sisodia, Shashank Dwivedi Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A., Manoj Kumar Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to whether trial court was justified in exercising its jurisdiction to frame charge u/s 308 IPC against revisionist, despite investigation materials indicating only grievous hurt and whether such framing of charge suffers from illegality, perversity or lack of judicial mind, thereby warranting interference under revisional jurisdiction. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 323, 504, 308 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 161 - Against framing of charge - Initially NCR was lodged on 20.02.2020 against revisionist, which was subsequently converted into FIR on 12.04.2020 u/s 323, 504 and 325 IPC - Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet for said offences was submitted and revisionist appeared before trial court and was granted bail - During consideration of charge, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 18.04.2025, proceeded to frame charges not only u/s 323 and 504 IPC but also u/s 308 IPC on basis of medical opinion indicating fracture of nasal spine alleged to have been caused by revisionist with danda - Aggrieved thereby, revisionist preferred instant criminal revision seeking quashing of said order, pleading lack of intention or knowledge to attract ingredients of Section 308 IPC and contending that case falls within purview of Section 325 IPC only.