Dismissed¶15

Bhagwat @ Sri Bhagwat and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2026CRLR/1181/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision No. 1181 of 2026, Allahabad High Court, decided 17.02.2026, Abdul Shahid J.: revision against rejection of discharge and framing of charges under S. 110 B.N.S. 2023 dismissed; vital-part injury not essential for S. 110 B.N.S.; Shanti Devi's forehead and breast injuries held vital; Gorakhpur; Chauri Chaura; Case Crime No. 612 of 2024; Sessions Case No. 2006 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the criminal revision was dismissed and the rejection of the discharge application together with the framing of charges was left undisturbed. ¶15

Bhagwat @ Sri Bhagwat and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1181 of 2026

¶3

Bhagwat @ Sri Bhagwat And 3 Others

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Nilesh Kumar Maurya	Dubey,	Shashi Shekhar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 87

¶6

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 08.02.2025 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, whereby the trial court rejected the discharge application and framed charges against the revisionist in Sessions Case No. 2006 of 2025, State vs. Sri Bhagwat Paswan & Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 612 of 2024, under Sections 5(2), 352, 35(2), 35(3), 333 and 10 of the B.N.S., Police Station Chauri Chaura, District Gorakhpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that no offence under Section 110 of the B.N.S., 2023 is made out against the revisionists. It is contended that the discharge application has been wrongly rejected by the trial court. It is further submitted that none of the injuries are on the vital parts of the injured persons. Reliance has been placed upon the statement of Dr. Satendra Kumar, Medical Officer, who has opined that all the injuries are simple in nature and were caused by a hard and blunt object. Hence, it is argued that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is liable to be set aside.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. contends that the discharge application was rejected by a detailed and reasoned order dated 03.12.2025. Thereafter, charges were framed on 08.12.2025 under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 333, and 110 of the B.N.S., 2023. It is further submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, or perversity; therefore, the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is not in dispute that the discharge application was rejected on 03.12.2025 and charges were framed on 08.12.2025. A perusal of Section 110 of the B.N.S.,

¶12

CRLR No. 1181 of 2026

¶13

¶14

2023 makes it clear that injury on a vital part of the body is not a sine qua non for attracting the said provision. The record reflects that there are four injured persons. As per the injury reports, Shanti Devi sustained injuries on her forehead as well as on her breast, which are vital parts of the body. Any injury on the head or breast may prove fatal at any stage.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the criminal revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

¶16

February 17, 2026 M. Tarik

¶17

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhagwat @ Sri Bhagwat and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwat @ Sri Bhagwat 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

Vidhi Narayan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Rahul Agarwal vs State of U.P. and Another

Allen Julius @ Allen Thomas Julius vs State of U.P. and Another

Vidhi Narayan Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Pyari Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others