Dismissed

Akhilesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2024CRLR/747/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) dismissed a criminal revision challenging the rejection of a discharge application. The court held the trial judge reasoned well as grounds require evidence for final determination and a prima facie case existed.

What did the court decide?

The revision is dismissed; the impugned order dated 07.05.2024 is upheld.

Akhilesh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:44891

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 747 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Akhilesh Kumar Yadav

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another

¶6

Counsel for Revisionist :- Abhishek Srivastava,Vinay Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶8

1. Heard.

¶9

Instant revision has been filed challenging the order dated 07.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Lucknow, whereby the discharge application filed by the revisionist has been rejected. Copy of the said order is part of the revision.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist argues that a perusal of the impugned order would indicate that none of the grounds as had been raised by the revisionist in the discharge application have been considered and thus the order reflects patent nonapplication of mind and consequently merits to the set-aside.

¶11

However, learned Additional Government Advocate on the basis of impugned order argues that the learned trial court has specifically recorded in paragraph 16 of its order that the factual grounds as have been raised by the revisionist can only be considered after leading of the evidence. Further, the learned trial court has been prima facie satisfied of the charges levelled against the revisionist consequently has rejected the discharge application. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

¶12

Having perused the order dated 07.05.2024 passed by the learned trial court it emerges that the discharge application has been decided by a reasoned and speaking order and the grounds as have been raised by the revisionist in the said discharge application have also been considered by the learned trial court by indicating that those grounds can only be held to be correct or incorrect only after leading of the evidence. Further the learned trial court has been satisfied that prima facie case is made out against the revisionist.

¶13

In this view of the matter, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 2.7.2024 A. Katiyar

¶15

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Akhilesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Rafi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Anr.

Durgesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others

Arvind Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Surekha Singhal and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and another

Jai Prakash Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 12 Others

Rannu Yadav @ Ram Bahadur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another