Jujhar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2025CRLR/1432/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision partly allowed; conviction under Section 323 IPC upheld; probation conditions modified for elderly disabled convict: bond and surety to be filed before trial court, supervision by trial court instead of District Probation Officer; compensation to be disbursed.

What did the court decide?

Probation conditions modified: revisionist to file bond before trial court and remain under trial court's supervision for one year; compensation to be disbursed to legal heirs. ¶¶27-¶28

Jujhar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1432 of 2025

Jujhar Singh

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Dinesh Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 27

¶9

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶11

The instant criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. (Now under Section 438/442 BNSS, 2023) has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.11.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.24, Pratapgarh, whereby the revisionist has been convicted for charge under Section 323 IPC and instead of sentencing him at once, extended him the benefit of Section 4 Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and directed him to be released on probation of good conduct on furnishing probation bond and a surety of Rs.10,000/-, with the condition that :-

¶12

i. the convict will maintain peace and good conduct during the period of probation and will remain under the supervision of the District Probation Officer, Pratapgarh.

¶13

ii. the convict shall appear before the District Probation Officer, Pratapgarh, on the 10th of each calendar month.

¶14

iii. the convict shall not repeat the offense of a similar nature and will refrain from any criminal activity during the said period of probation.

¶15

Apart from that, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as

¶16

CRLR No. 1432 of 2025

¶17

¶18

compensation to the family of the deceased-complainant.

¶19

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that there are some factual and legal errors in the impugned judgment, whereby the revisionist has been convicted of charge under Section 323 IPC. He has been acquitted of charges under Section 504 and 506 IPC. At present, he is 70 years of age. The medical certificate of the revisionist is filed with the affidavit in the present revision, which revealed that he is 60% disabled. He suffered fracture in his femur bone when he was hospitalized in the year 2023 in Priti Nursing and Maternity Home, Prayagraj. Due to the disability, he is unable to move. He has deposited Rs.10,000/-, the amount of compensation which is to be paid to the next of kin of the complainant, pursuant to the impugned judgment and order on 17.11.2025. Due to his disability, old age and age-related other ailments, he is not in a position to visit the District Probation Officer on each and every month, therefore, the prayer of the revisionist is confined, at present, to the extent that instead of filing the probation bond before the District Probation Officer and complying with the supervision order passed in the impugned judgment order, he may be permitted to furnish probation bonds before the learned trial court and directed to remain in supervision of trial court.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. raised no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶21

The offence relates to the year 1994 and the criminal revision was decided finally on 15.11.2025 by learned trial court. This was a complaint case and remained pending for around 30 years. The conviction of the revisionist has been recorded for charge under Section 323 IPC, which is punishable by one year imprisonment or with fine, which may extend to Rs.10,000 or with both. Therefore, the offence is a minor offence and I find the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist that due to the peculiar conditions and old age of the revisionist, which is corroborated by the papers filed alongwith the affidavit of the son of the revisionist, I am of the considered opinion that the final order regarding probation is liable to be modified in the interest of justice.

¶22

The conviction of the revisionist for the charge under Section 323 IPC

¶23

CRLR No. 1432 of 2025

¶24

¶25

is maintained, however, the final order is modified to the extent that under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 the revisionist shall file a personal bond and one surety in the like amount of Rs.10,000/- before the learned trial court and for a period of probation of one year, he will remain in supervision of trial court, instead of District Probation Officer. The revisionist shall maintain peace and good conduct during the period of probation and will not be involved in any criminal activities. In case of receiving any adverse information regarding the revisionist, the learned trial court will be at liberty to verify the same and proceed in accordance with law but he will not be summoned to appear before the court without any compelling reason and that too when his appearance through counsel will not serve the purpose. The amount of compensation deposited by the revisionist shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of the complainant by the trial court. The impugned order instant modified accordingly.

¶26

The probation bonds are to be filed before the trial court within two weeks.

¶27

The present criminal revision is partly allowed accordingly.

¶28

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶29

December 12, 2025 Mohd. Sharif

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jujhar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jujhar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Himanshu Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 2 Others

Mohd. Azeem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Anand Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Vijay Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mo. Shakil and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Awadhesh Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another