Dismissed¶14

Aarti v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Mar 2026CRLR/1587/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision No. 1587 of 2026; Aarti vs. State of U.P. and Another; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Abdul Shahid, J.; decided March 9, 2026; offences under Sections 103(1), 61(2) and 238 BNS; Sessions Trial No. 3656 of 2025; Addl. Sessions Judge Court No. 2 Bulandshahaar; challenge to trial court order dated 5.2.2026; delay of 36 hours in FIR; conspirator role; implication on co-accused confessional statement; enmity; CDR not collected; no recovery; property dispute among brothers and sisters-in-law; illicit relationship; no mini trial at interim stage; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision is dismissed; the challenge to the impugned order dated 5.2.2026 fails. ¶14

Aarti Vs State of U.P. and Another — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1587 of 2026

¶3

Aarti

¶4

	Versus	.....Revisionist(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: Shiv Kumar Kesari : G.A.

¶5

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

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order dated 5.2.2026 passed by the learned trial court is unjustifiable, illegal and it is liable to be set aside.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that there is delay of two days in lodging the first information report. There is no independent witness. The role of the revisionist has simply assigned as a conspirator. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the revisionist has been wrongly named in the case by the police on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused and enmity with the revisionist, mentioned in the first information report whereas it is not mentioned what is the nature of the enmity with the revisionist. There is no eye witness of the said incident. The mobile call and the location of the revisionist about the alleged incident. The investigating officer has not collected the CDR of the revisionist and the deceased. The revisionist is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. She is having no enmity with the deceased. There is no motive mentioned in the first information report. It is further alleged that the first information report has been lodged after delay of 36 hours after consulting the legal counsel. No material related to the incident has been recovered from the revisionist. The revisionist has no specific role

¶10

CRLR No. 1587 of 2026

¶11

¶12

in the crime. There is no recovery from the possession of the revisionist. The reality is that the deceased are three brothers including him. The deceased is younger and unmarried and the rests two brothers are married. There is property dispute of the deceased with his brothers and sister-in-laws. Due to the said property dispute, on several occasions hard talk took place between the deceased, his brothers and sister-in-laws. Due to the said dispute, the brothers have killed the deceased with the collusion of sister-in-laws so that the property will be partitioned only in two shares.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the impugned order is purely unjustifiable. She has been named in the first information report and charge-sheet has been filed against her. There is specific role of the revisionist in the said offence. The deceased was unmarried. The cause of death of the deceased was ante mortem several injuries on the body as well as head injury. It is alleged that the deceased and the revisionist were having illicit relationship. The deceased and the revisionist both are co-villagers. The revisionist is named in the first information report. There are several serious allegations against her and evidence were found against her during the investigation. Thereafter the chargesheet has also been filed against the revisionist. The offence committed is very serious in nature. Neither any mini trial nor meticulous appreciation of the evidence is permissible, at this stage, more particularly, in the serious and heinous offences under Sections 103 (1), 61 (2) and 238 BNS. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 5.2.2026 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bulandshahaar in Sessions Trial No. 3656 of 2025.

¶14

The instant criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly.

¶15

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶16

March 9, 2026 n.u.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- NASEEM UDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aarti v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aarti 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shabana Parveen vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vishal Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Dheeraj and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Bareilly Development Authority Vs Rajendra Prasad

Abhimanyu @ Mannu vs State of U.P. and Another

Aarti vs State of U.P. and Another