Disposed¶10

Sajid v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2026CRLR/1759/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sajid v. State of U.P. and Another, Criminal Revision No. 1759 of 2026, Allahabad High Court, decided May 14, 2026 (Manoj Bajaj, J.). Premature revision against non-merits refusal to consider Section 319 Cr.P.C. summons application not entertained; liberty to renew prayer before trial court after remaining injured witnesses examined. Keywords: Section 319 Cr.P.C., summoning of additional accused, Gangster Act court Muzaffar Nagar, ST No. 391 of 2021, Case Crime No. 53 of 2020, Sections 452/323/324/325/307/504/506 IPC, PS Jansath.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition disposed of without interference with the impugned order; liberty preserved to the petitioner to press his Section 319 Cr.P.C. application after examination of the remaining two injured witnesses. ¶10

Sajid vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1759 of 2026

¶2

Sajid

¶3

.....Revisionist(s)

¶4

Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) :	Mohammad Faisal Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 85

¶6

HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

¶7

Petitioner has filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned order dated 21.8.2025 passed by Special Session Judge (Gangster Act), Muzaffar Nagar in Session Trial No. 391 of 2021, titled State of U.P. Vs. Dildar and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 53 of 2020, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 325, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Jansath, District Muzaffar Nagar, whereby his application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Noorkan-opposite party no.2 has been rejected.

¶8

Concededly, the application filed by petitioner-complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has not been adjudicated on merits on the ground that the prosecution has only examined complainant as a witness whereas other two injured persons namely, Jiledar and Majid are yet to be examined. The trial court has left the issue open while directing the prosecution to examine other two injured persons.

¶9

Since, the impugned order dated 21.8.2025 is not on merits of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., therefore, no case is made out for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. However, it shall be opened for the petitioner to press his prayer after examination of the other two injured persons before the trial court.

¶10

The revision petition is disposed of.

¶11

(Manoj Bajaj,J.)

¶12

May 14, 2026 P.S.Parihar

¶13

Digitally signed by :- POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sajid v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajid 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

Kush @ Kush Kumar vs State of U.P.

Sonu @ Siraj Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitu Tiwari vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajiv Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Karamveer Singh Dhillon vs State of U.P.

Parvez Ahmad Siddiqui and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another