Dismissed¶16

Bhanu Maurya and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2026CRLA/1747/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, CRLA No. 1747 of 2026, Bhanu Maurya and another v. State of U.P. and another, decided 19.03.2026 by Anil Kumar-X, J. Keywords: discharge application; framing of charge; defence of accused not permissible at discharge/charge stage; SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Section 3(1)(X); Section 14-A(1) appeal; sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC; Crime No.05 of 2003, PS Mehdawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar; Sessions Case No.19 of 20006; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The defence of the accused cannot be considered either at the stage of discharge or at the stage of framing of charges; therefore the objections raised by the appellants in their discharge application are untenable. ¶15

Bhanu Maurya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1747 of 2026

¶2

Bhanu Maurya And Another

¶3

.....Appellant(s)

¶4

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		...	..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Kamalesh Kumar Maurya	Nishad,	Ram Awadh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A., Sunil Kumar-I

¶5

Court No. - 51

¶6

HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for appellants, learned counsel for informant and Sri R.K. Singh, learned AGA for State.

¶8

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order dated 17.01.2026 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Basti in Sessions Case No.19 of 20006 (State Vs. Bhanu Maurya and others) arising out of case Crime No.05 of 2003, under sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC and Section 3(1) (X) SC/ST Act, Police station Mehdawal District Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that their discharge application was wrongly rejected by the learned Trial Court without considering the fact that the FIR against them was lodged by the informant, who falsely claimed himself to be a member of the SC/ST community. The Court has wrongly relied upon the documents submitted by the informant/respondent. The appellants will suffer unnecessary harassment by being made to face trial for offences under the SC/ST Act. There is neither rhyme nor reason to drag the appellants into trial at the instance of the informant, who is not a member of the SC/ST community. Hence, the impugned order rejecting the discharge application of the appellants is liable to be set aside.

¶10

Learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the informant/respondent have submitted that the accused is not permitted to submit his defence or documents at the stage of framing of charge. At the stage when the Court is considering a discharge

¶11

CRLA No. 1747 of 2026

¶12

¶13

application, it is required to confine itself to the material and evidence collected during the investigation. The Court cannot go beyond the material collected during the investigation. If the Investigating Officer has not found any such evidence during the investigation to indicate that the informant does not belong to the SC/ST community, then such an objection cannot be raised by the accused at the stage of discharge. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

¶15

It is well-settled law that the defence of the accused cannot be considered either at the stage of discharge or at the stage of framing of charges. Therefore, the objections raised by the appellants in their discharge application are untenable. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court does not require any interference.

¶16

Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.

¶17

March 19, 2026

¶18

Mukesh

¶19

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhanu Maurya and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanu Maurya and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Heera Lal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Gobind Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramesh Gupta and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Rajesh Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. and Another