Samar Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Samar Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision admitted; notice issued to respondents no. 2 and 3 through the CJM concerned, returnable at an early date; steps within a week; matter listed on 13.04.2026 as fresh. Merits not decided.

Issue for consideration

Whether the dismissal of the revisionist's (second) application under Section 173(8) CrPC / rejection of his protest application against the final report was sustainable, given that, per the revisionist, injured witnesses had implicated opposite party nos. 2 and 3, who were dropped from the charge-sheet on the basis of independent witnesses and CDR location.

Ratio / Principle

The criminal revision is admitted.

Key takeaways

Notice is issued to respondents no. 2 and 3, returnable at an early date through the CJM concerned; steps to be taken within a week; matter to be listed on 13.04.2026 as fresh. No finding was recorded on the merits of the challenge to the impugned order.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No. 206 of 2026 under Sections 397/401 CrPC against the order dated 12/12/2025 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.20, Sultanpur, rejecting the revisionist-defacto complainant's protest application against the final report dated 02/05/2025 in Case Crime No. 68/2023 (Sections 452, 323, 506, 308, 34, 307 and 325 IPC, PS Kurebhar, District Sultanpur; incident 08/03/2023). The revisionist challenged the Investigating Officer's dropping of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 (including opposite party no.3, Vipin Singh, and Shiv Bahadur Singh alias Pinku) despite, per counsel, injured witnesses implicating them; six of eight accused were charge-sheeted, the IO relying on witnesses Suni Dev Sharma, Alok Kumar Pathak and Dhananjay Singh and on CDR/mobile location. Counsel also challenged dismissal of his second application under Section 173(8) CrPC for further investigation, the first such application having been allowed on 23/11/2024 without effective further investigation; reliance was placed on Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 AIR Supreme Court 1736 (injured witness testimony). Held: revision admitted; notice to respondents no. 2 and 3 through CJM concerned; steps within a week; listed 13.04.2026 as fresh. Interim order; no merits decided.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 206 of 2026

Samar Bahadur Singh

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 27

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A., for the State respondent no.1 and perused the record.

Instant criminal revision, under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred against the order dated 12/12/2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.20, Sultanpur, arising out of Case Crime No.68/2023, under Sections 452, 323, 506, 308, 34, 307 and 325 IPC, Police Station Kurebhar, District Sultanpur, whereby the protest application against the final report dated 02/05/2025 moved by the revisionist has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is a defacto complainant in the said case. The investigating officer dropped the name of opposite party no.3, Vipin Singh, even after issuing of nonbailable warrant at the instance of the Investigating Officer and also that of Shiv Bahadur Singh alias Pinku, despite the fact that injured witnesses had implicated, inter alia, both the accused persons as authors of the crime. Out of eight accused, six persons were charge-sheeted. The names of responders no.2 and 3 were dropped on the basis of the evidence of Suni Dev Sharma, Alok Kumar Pathak and Dhananjay Singh, who are examined by the Investigating Officer as independent witness. The Investigating Officer also observed that the location of mobile phones were found elsewhere. The incident occurred on 08/03/2023 at 7:30 p.m.

CRLR No. 206 of 2026

2

The investigating officer has also placed reliance on the CDR of respondents no.2 and 3 while on the basis of which the names of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 were dropped in the charge sheet.

He next submitted that learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balu Sudam Khalde versus State of Maharashtra, 2023 AIR Supreme Court 1736 , where it is held in 26 that "unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.

He further submitted that the instant revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 12/12/2005, whereby an application under Section 173(8), CrPC filed by the revisionist (complainant) for further investigation has been dismissed by the learned court below. This was the second application for further investigation, as the first application was allowed on 23/11/2024, but no effective further investigation was done by the Investigating Officer and he reiterated his conclusion in second investigation report on the basis of the same material.

Admit.

Issue notice to the respondents no. 2 and 3, returnable at an early date, through CJM concerned.

Steps be taken within a week.

List on 13.04.2026 as fresh.

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

February 24, 2026 KR

Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench