Dismissed¶9

Manoj Patel Alias Gorelal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2025CRLR/8382/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Discharge application rejection upheld; criminal revision dismissed. Keywords: CRLR/Criminal Revision No. 8382 of 2025; Sessions Trial No. 350 of 2025; case crime/FIR No. 130 of 2024; PS Machhalishahar, District Jaunpur; Sections 307, 308, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 326, 34 IPC; nature-of-injuries objection to Sections 307/308 IPC (lacerated wound, abraded contusion, amputated thumb, no incised wound); prompt FIR; sharp-edged vs blunt-edge question left for trial; no illegality or irregularity in order dated 12.11.2025; Sessions Judge Jaunpur; Abdul Shahid, J.; decided December 11, 2025.

What did the court decide?

None - the criminal revision was dismissed, thereby upholding the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur's rejection of the discharge application. ¶9

Manoj Patel Alias Gorelal and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - the criminal revision was dismissed, thereby upholding the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur's rejection of the discharge application.

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 12.11.2025 of the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur rejecting the discharge application of the revisionists suffered from any illegality or irregularity, i.e., whether the revisionists were entitled to be discharged. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

Having regard to the genesis and nature of the injuries, the promptness of the FIR and the prosecution evidence collected during investigation, the revisionists are not entitled to be discharged.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge suffers from no illegality or irregularity.

¶8

Key takeaways

Whether the injuries were caused by sharp-edged or blunt-edged portions of the weapons concerned cannot receive a final finding at the discharge stage; it falls to be decided after collection and appreciation of the entire evidence during trial.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Abdul Shahid, J.), by order dated December 11, 2025, dismissed Criminal Revision No. 8382 of 2025 challenging the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur's order dated 12.11.2025 rejecting the revisionists' discharge application in Sessions Trial No. 350 of 2025 (State Vs. Manoj Patel @ Gorelal and others), arising out of case crime No. 130 of 2024, Police Station Machhalishashar, District Jaunpur, under Sections 307, 308, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 326 and 34 IPC (FIR under Sections 307, 308, 323, 324, 326, 427, 452, 506 IPC). Held: in view of the genesis and nature of the injuries, the promptness of the FIR (lodged the same morning at 9.25 hours for an occurrence at about 5.30 hours) and the evidence collected during investigation, the revisionists were not entitled to be discharged; whether the injuries (lacerated wounds, abrasions, amputation of thumb - no incised wound) were caused by sharp-edged weapons could receive no final finding at that stage and fell for decision after appreciation of the entire evidence at trial. The impugned order was found to contain no illegality or irregularity and the revision was dismissed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8382 of 2025

¶3

Manoj Patel Alias Gorelal And 3 Others

¶4

	Versus	.....Revisionist(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: Vidya Prakash Singh : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 91

¶6

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned AGA for the State.

¶8

The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 12.11.2025, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, in Sessions Trial No. 350 of 2025 (State Vs. Manoj Patel @ Gorelal and others), arising out of case crime No. 130 of 2024 under Sections 307, 308, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 326 and 34 IPC, Police Station Machhalishashar, District Jaunpur, whereby the discharge application of the revisionists has been rejected.

¶9

Brief facts of the case is that the FIR was lodged under Sections 307, 308, 323, 324, 326, 427, 452, 506 IPC. The occurrence of offence is 2.5.2024 at 5.30 hours and the FIR was lodged promptly on 2.5.2024 at 9.25 hours. The complainant/Smt. Punita Verma wife of Rahul Kumar has filed the FIR against the accused persons, namely, (1) Manoj Patel alias Gorelal, (2) Banshi Lal, (3) Paras Nath and (4) Gulab Chand. The complainant has lodged the FIR that there is enmity with the accused persons and they are co-villagers and they are of criminal mentality. The accused Manoj Patel, alias Gorelal, Banshi Lal, Paras Nath, Gulab Chand armed with entered into the house of the complainant on 2.5.2024 in the morning around 5.30 hours. Manoj Patel alias Gorelal and Banshi Lal attacked father-in-law of the complainant, Jiya Lal aged about 55 years by 'Gandasa' and 'Ballam'. He has suffered serious injuries on the body and on the backbone. The injured Jiya Lal became unconscious and fell down

¶10

CRLR No. 8382 of 2025

¶11

¶12

on the spot. Paras Nath and Gulab Chand had hit her Dewar, Pradeep Kumar and attacked with incised weapon and left thumb of Pradeep was separated from the palm. Neelam and others members of the family when tried to intervene and save them, then they also severally beaten Neelam. They also beaten Meera wife of Ramesh Kumar and her relative, maternal mother-in-law. They have also broken house holds precious goods.

¶13

The charge sheet has been filed after collection of evidence by the Investigating Officer.

¶14

Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the impugned order dated 12.11.2025 is arbitrary, illegal and has been passed without application of judicial mind. The charge sheet has been filed against the revisionist. There is no evidence available on record and no offence under Section 307 and 308 IPC is made as per injuries of the injured.

¶15

Learned AGA has opposed the revision and has stated that the impugned order dated 12.11.2025 is having no illegality or irregularity.

¶16

Learned trial court has passed a detail speaking order and stated that the revisionists have caused serious injuries by various weapons to the injured persons, which are specifically detailed in the FIR. The evidences collected during investigation have supported the prosecution case. Learned trial court has specifically held that the injured-Punita Verma, Neelam and Meera are having injury reports and complain of pain. The injured Jiya Lal had suffered three injuries. The injury No.1 is lacerated wound size 2.5 x 1.5 cm on right side of chest.The injury no.2 is abraded contusion 2x 1cm on scapulla region and injury no.3 is abraded contusion size 2.15cm. The injured Pradeep has suffered three injuries viz. (1) Amputated thumb on middle, (2) Lacerated would size 2 x 02 cm skin deep index finger, (3) Abrasion size 2 x 1 cm on middle finger.

¶17

Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that there are no injury caused by incised weapon. The injury is of lacerated, abrasion and amputation. In villages, the weapon made for commonly use of various purposes where it could be used that may be of sharp edge and somewhere, it may be some blunt edges. Whereas, this has to be decided after collection of entire evidence during trial and thereafter its

¶18

CRLR No. 8382 of 2025

¶19

¶20

appreciation. No final finding could be given at this stage. Whereas from the genesis and nature of injuries, promptness of FIR and evidences of prosecution, the revisionists are not entitled to be discharged. The impugned order dated 12.11.2025 is having no illegality or irregularity.

¶21

The revision is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed.

¶22

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶23

December 11, 2025

¶24

sfa/

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Patel Alias Gorelal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Patel Alias Gorelal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

Deepak Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajendra Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nikhil @ Nikki and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Naresh Chandra vs State of U.P. and Another

Adesh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Rekha Khera and Another vs State of U.P. and Another