Dismissed¶36

Vikash Shukla v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Jun 2025CRLR/2596/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision dismissed; discharge application rejected; Section 227 Cr.P.C.; Sections 363, 364 I.P.C.; kidnapping; last seen witness; grave suspicion; mini-trial caution at discharge stage; Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration (1996) 9 SCC 766; Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4; State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659; Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia 1989 (1) SCC 715; Police Station Kalwari, District Basti; Allahabad High Court; revisional interference refused.

What did the court decide?

None; no interference warranted and the impugned discharge-rejection order is upheld. ¶36

Vikash Shukla vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; no interference warranted and the impugned discharge-rejection order is upheld.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 27.03.2024 of the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) 1st, Basti rejecting the discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. should be quashed under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The learned Trial Court considered all the facts mentioned in the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and the materials and evidences available on record in passing the impugned order.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

At the discharge-application stage, facts stated by the accused in his defence can be considered only when they raise a grave suspicion on the prosecution story; the evidences collected by the Investigating Officer showed grave suspicion against the accused-Revisionist, so the Satish Mehra judgment would not rescue the Revisionist.

¶27

Key takeaways

There is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order below; the impugned order is a reasoned order assigning reasons for declining discharge; the Revisionist has not made out a fit case for interference, and no interference is warranted.ratio¶35
Since Raj Pal Singh is still not discovered, the truthfulness and reliability of the last-seen witnesses can be ascertained only after the trial of the case.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Divesh Chandra Samant, J.), Criminal Revision No. 2596 of 2024, decided December 9, 2025: Criminal revision by Vikash Shukla seeking quashing of the order dated 27.03.2024 of the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) 1st, Basti rejecting his discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. in S.T. No. 1013 of 2023 (State vs. Vikash Shukla, Sections 363, 364 I.P.C., Police Station Kalwari, District Basti) is dismissed. The Court found the Trial Court had considered all facts in the Section 227 application and the available materials and passed a reasoned order; the Investigating Officer's evidence (including last-seen witnesses regarding the missing minor, Raj Pal Singh alias Priyanshu, still undiscovered) showed grave suspicion against the Revisionist, whose reliability as witnesses could be ascertained only at trial. Applying Prafulla Kumar Samal, Som Nath Thapa and Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad, and distinguishing Satish Mehra as inapplicable where grave suspicion subsists, the Court found no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error and declined interference.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2596 of 2024

¶3

Vikash Shukla

¶4

	Versus		.....Revisionist(s)
State of U.P.			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Mahesh Shukla	Prasad	Yadav, Sudhakar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 19

¶6

HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the Revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

Present Criminal Revision has been preferred with prayer to quash the order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge(F.T.C.) 1^st , Basti in S.T. No. 1013 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 73 of 2023(State vs. Vikash Shukla), under Sections 363, 364 I.P.C., Police Sttion Kalwari, District Basti, whereby, discharge application of the Revisionist has been rejected.

¶9

The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the alleged incident of kidnapping of Rajpal Singh @ Priyansu is stated to have occurred on 09.03.2023 at about 5:30 P.M. from the house of the first informant. An FIR in this regard was lodged on 10.03.2023 at 13:31 hours at Police Station Kalwari, District Basti, registered as Case Crime No. 73 of 2023, in which neither the Revisionist nor any other person was named as an accused. During investigation, statements of several classmates, family members, including the aunt and brother of the abductee, were recorded, but none disclosed any circumstance indicating the involvement of the Revisionist in the aforesaid crime. Despite the absence of any incriminating material, the Revisionist was arrested on 23.04.2023 on the basis of alleged “last seen” evidence, which is a weak piece of evidence and lacked independent corroboration. The Revisionist was subsequently granted bail by this Hon’ble Court upon finding no legal evidence against

¶10

CRLR No. 2596 of 2024

¶11

¶12

him. After commencement of trial, the Revisionist moved an application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. on 11.12.2023, but the learned Trial Court mechanically rejected the same by the impugned order.

¶13

It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the Revisionist that he was not named in the FIR, but on the basis of statement of witnesses Madhuri Singh, who is relative of the informant and whose statement has been recorded after 45 days from the lodging of FIR, he has been roped in the present case without any reason. There are evidences of friends of the missing son of the informant that he was upset with his exam and it is very possible that he has left the home in a frustration. There is no proper evidence to show that the victim was deceitfully enduced to the company of the Revisionist.

¶14

It is further argued that the alleged whatsapp chat is an afterthought and based on hearsay evidence. In fact, on the date of incident, the Revisionist was all day involved in the family and farming related work. The learned Trial Court has not considered the facts and material which are available on record and passed the impugned order purely based upon conjectures and surmises.

¶15

In support of his argument, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and Another, (1996) 9 SCC 766 and Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Another, (1979) 3 SCC 4 .

¶16

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the submission of learned counsel for the Revisionist and submitted that the discharge application filed by the accused-Revisionist is baseless. No motive has been asserted by the accused-Revisionist as to why he has been falsely roped in the present case. In the investigation, it is found that there was some relationship between the missing victim and the cousin sister of the accused-Revisionist, which was not liked by the accused and he had also warned the mother of her cousin sister about the same.

¶17

It is further argued that there are sufficient material available on record which insinuates about the involvement of the Revisionist in committing the offence by abducting and eloping the son of the informant. There is

¶18

CRLR No. 2596 of 2024

¶19

¶20

grave apprehension that a missing son of the informant has been murdered by the accused-Revisionist. The learned Trial court has rightly rejected the discharge application after evaluating the facts and evidence available on record, which does not warrant any intereference by this Court.

¶21

After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the material available on record as well as judgments relied upon, it shows that an FIR was lodged by the informant-Rangpal Singh on 10.03.2023 that his son Raj Pal Singh alias Priyanshu, aged about 17 years, student of 12th class has gone with some unknown persons by a motor cycle on 09.03.2023 at about 5:30 PM, was seen by some of the neighboring children. During the investigation, several statements have been recorded by the Investigating Officer as well as C.C.T.V. footage were checked and pamphlets were pasted at several places, in which witnesses Manoj Kumar, Harshit Yadav, Sailendra Singh, Shivajeet Singh have stated about the relationship between the victim-Rajpal Singh and the cousin sister of the accused, namely Himanshi Shukla alias Babli.

¶22

The witness Shivajeet Singh has stated that he had seen Raj Pal Singh sitting on the motor cycle of Revisionist-Vikash Shukla on 09.03.2023 at 6:00 PM. The other witness Rahul Singh, Sailendra Singh and Madhuri Singh have also stated alike and Madhuri Singh is also a last seen witness, who has seen Raj Pal Singh sitting at the back of the motor cycle of the accused. Admittedly, Raj Pal Singh is still not discovered, the truthfullness and reliablity of the witnesses can be ascertained only after the trial of the case.

¶23

In the case law of Satish Mehra(Supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the Revisionist, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it would be unjust to propose that the court should not look into the evidence presented by the accused at the stage of taking cognizance or framing of charges if that evidence could potentially damage the case's viability.

¶24

The aforesaid case has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the Revisionist to support his defence that on the date of incident, he was

¶25

CRLR No. 2596 of 2024

¶26

¶27

engaged with some family and farming work. At the stage of disposal of discharge application the fact stated by the accused-Revisionist in his defence can be considered only when it raises a grave suspicion on the prosecution story, whereas the evidences collected by the I.O. shows grave suspicion against the accused-Revisionist, therefore, this judgment will not come in the rescue of the Revisionist.

¶28

In the case of Prafulla Kumar(Supra) , the Apex Court has held that at the stage of framing a charge, the Judge is not a mere Post Office, but he is also not required to meticulously weigh the evidence. If the Judge is satisfied that the materials disclose a grave suspicion against the accused, he must proceed with the trial and the discharge application must be rejected. The evidence presented must be such that, if unrebutted, it could lead to conviction.

¶29

In the case of State of Maharashtra and others versus Som Nath Thapa and others, (1996) 4 SCC 659 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified that if the material placed before the Court gives rise to strong suspicion against the accused, then it is sufficient to proceed with the framing of charge, thus necessitating the rejection of the discharge plea. The test is whether the material suggest that the accused probably committed the offences.

¶30

In a case of Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad Etc. versus Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr., 1989 SCC (1) 715 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned against embarking on a 'mini-trial' to determine the truthfulness of the evidence at the stage of discharge. If the record discloses "grounds for presuming" that the accused has committed the offence, the application must be rejected, and the case must proceed to trial.

¶31

In view of the above case laws, the perusal of the impugned order dated 27.03.2024 shows that the learned Trial Court has considered all the facts mentioned in the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and the materials and evidences available on record and passed the impugned order.

¶32

By considering the facts and evidence, the learned Trial Court has

¶33

CRLR No. 2596 of 2024

¶34

¶35

found that there are sufficient evidence available on record regarding the alleged charge against the accused there is no lawful ground to discharge the accused person. The impugned order passed by learned Trial Court is reasoned order on the facts and evidence assigning the reasons for declining to allow the discharge application. Therefore, I find no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error committed by the Court below in passing the impugned order and the Revisionist is not able to make out a fit case, so as to justify interference by this Court by granting any relief under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. No interference is warranted.

¶36

Revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶37

(Divesh Chandra Samant,J.)

¶38

December 9, 2025

¶39

ADY

¶40

Digitally signed by :- AMAR DEEP YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vikash Shukla v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash Shukla v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Radha Krishna Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Meena @ Rekha and 6 Others vs State of Up and Another

Vikash Shukla vs State of U.P.

Tahera Khatoon vs State of U.P. 6 Others

Udai Veer Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Rai vs State of Up and Another