Dismissed¶¶16

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

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2026CRLR/1182/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision dismissed; discharge refused; Sections 302, 120-B IPC; charge sheet against revisionist and father Thomas Julius; mini trial not permissible at stage of discharge; FSL report poisonous substance; IVF report; property executed in favour of sister and co-accused; Additional Sessions Judge Ghaziabad; Session Trial No. 256 of 2024; case crime no. 212 of 2023; P.S. Wave City; Allahabad High Court; Abdul Shahid, J.; February 17, 2026.

What did the court decide?

At the stage of discharge of the accused, meticulous appreciation of evidence or conducting a mini trial is not permissible; final appreciation of the evidence is for the learned trial court at the appropriate stage. ¶¶15

Allen Julius @ Allen Thomas Julius vs State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order declining discharge of the revisionist, who is named in the FIR and against whom a charge sheet has been filed under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, suffers from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in criminal revision.

¶¶9

Court's answer

¶¶15

Ratio / Principle

On the material on record (FSL report finding poisonous substance in the deceased's body, execution of her movable property in favour of her sister and co-accused Thomas Julius, the positive IVF report, and consistency in the allegations that the deceased was disturbed by the accused persons), there is neither illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order; the criminal revision lacks merit and is dismissed.

¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Allahabad High Court, Abdul Shahid, J., decided February 17, 2026) against the order dated 19.1.2026 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ghaziabad, in Session Trial No. 256 of 2024 (case crime no. 212 of 2023, Sections 302, 120-B IPC, P.S. Wave City), whereby the discharge of the revisionist, Allen Julius @ Allen Thomas Julius (stated to be a student aged about 17 years, on bail), was declined. The revisionist was named in the FIR; after investigation a charge sheet was filed against him and his father, co-accused Thomas Julius. Held: as per the FSL report a poisonous substance was found in the deceased's body; the deceased had executed her movable property in favour of her sister and the co-accused; the accused and co-accused were unhappy when the deceased's IVF report was positive; the allegations were consistent; meticulous appreciation of evidence or a mini trial is impermissible at the stage of discharge, final appreciation being for the trial court. No illegality or irregularity found in the impugned order; revision dismissed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1182 of 2026

¶3

Allen Julius @ Allen Thomas Julius

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Manoj Srivasta	Kumar va	Srivastava, Namit
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 87

¶6

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 19.1.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. .1, Ghaziabad, in Session Trial No. 256 of 2024, arising out of case crime no. 212 of 2023, under Sections 302, 120-B IPC, Police Station Wave City, District Ghaziabad.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is on bail. There was no motive on the part of the revisionist to commit the offence as alleged in the FIR. The revisionist is a student of B.P.F., aged about 17 years. It was further submitted that the revisionist has neither committed any offence nor was he served with any notice regarding the alleged crime. Therefore, the revisionist is entitled to be discharged, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. contended that the FIR was lodged against the revisionist under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet has been filed under the aforesaid sections against the revisionist and his father, Thomas Julius. It was further submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality; thus, the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

From a perusal of the record, it transpires that the revisionist is named in the FIR, and after due investigation, his role came to light and was duly verified during the course of investigation. Accordingly, the charge sheet has been filed against him. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the impugned order was passed without proper application of judicial mind, as there is no evidence to show that the revisionist was in possession of the poisonous substance allegedly administered to the deceased, nor was any poisonous substance recovered from his possession. It was further contended

¶12

CRLR No. 1182 of 2026

¶13

¶14

that the revisionist has no concern with the crime, inasmuch as there was no matrimonial relationship between the revisionist and the deceased, and they were living separately without entering into any matrimonial relationship.

¶15

The learned trial court has passed a detailed and reasoned order. As per the FSL report, a poisonous substance was found in the body of the deceased. The deceased had executed all her movable property in favour of her sister and the co-accused, Thomas Julius, and when the deceased's IVF report was found positive, the accused and co-accused were not happy. There is consistency in the allegations that the deceased was disturbed by the accused persons. The matter is heinous and grave in nature. Any meticulous appreciation of evidence or conducting a mini trial is not permissible at the stage of discharge of the accused. Final appreciation of the evidence shall be done by the learned trial court at the appropriate stage.

¶16

In view thereof, there is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order. The criminal revision lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly.

¶17

February 17, 2026 M. Tarik

¶18

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶19

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Allen Julius @ Allen Thomas Julius 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

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

Bhagwat @ Sri Bhagwat and 3 Others 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