Rajesh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rajesh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal revision admitted; notice to respondent no. 2 through the CJM, returnable at an early date; steps to be taken within a week; matter listed for hearing as fresh on 26/05/2026. Interlocutory order; no decision on merits or on maintainability.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal revision is maintainable after the framing of charges on 23.01.2026 and commencement of trial (preliminary objection raised by learned A.G.A. for the State). +1 more

Court's answer

The Court admitted the criminal revision and proceeded to issue notice, implicitly not upholding, at this interlocutory stage, the State's objection that the revision was not maintainable once trial had commenced; no opinion was expressed on the merits of the charges.

Key takeaways

Notice was directed to respondent no. 2, to be served through the CJM and returnable at an early date.¶¶17
The matter was listed for hearing as fresh on 26/05/2026, with steps to be taken within a week.¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No. 459 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), decided April 23, 2026 (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.). Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., now under Section 438 read with Section 442 BNSS, against the order dated 23.01.2026 of the learned Sessions Judge, Unnao in Sessions Trial No. 1239/2025 (State vs Rajesh Yadav) rejecting the revisionist's discharge application and framing charges under Section- 269, 326, 308 IPC and 15(2) Indian Medical Counsel Act (printed thus; apparently intended as Indian Medical Council Act), concerning an allegation that two persons became HIV infected whose names and particulars were not disclosed. The revisionist contended that on the FIR version, the inquiry report of the team of doctors and the investigation evidence the charges were not made out and the discharge grounds were not considered. The learned A.G.A. objected that the revision was not maintainable as trial had commenced, the accused having denied the charges and requested trial. The Court admitted the revision, directed notice to respondent no. 2 through the CJM returnable at an early date with steps within a week, and listed the matter for fresh hearing on 26/05/2026. No expression of opinion on the merits or on maintainability; no precedent cited.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 459 of 2026

Rajesh Yadav

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Dheerendra 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 and perused the record.

The instant criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. now under Section 438 read with Section 442 BNSS against the impugned order dated 23.01.2026 passed in Sessions trial no.1239/2025 (State vs Rajesh Yadav) by which learned Sessions Judge, Unnao rejecting revisionist's application for discharge from offences leveled against him framed charges under Section- 269, 326, 308 IPC & 15(2) Indian Medical Counsel Act against him.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that on the basis FIR version, the inquiry report submitted by the team of doctors and the evidence collected during the investigation, charges under Sections 269, 326, 308 IPC & 15(2) Indian Medical Counsel Act are not made out on the facts of the case against the revisionist. The learned trial court has not taken into consideration the grounds taken in the discharge application and framed charges against the revisionist by order dated 23/01/2026, and fixed the case for prosecution evidence. There is mention of two persons who became HIV infected, but the names and particulars of the said persons are not brought into light.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the revision is not maintainable. It is stated in the charge framed on 23/01/2026 by the learned Sessions Judge that the accused denied the charges and requested a trial . Once the stage of trial is started, the present revision is not maintainable.

The matter requires consideration.

Admit

Issue notice to respondent no.2 which shall be served through CJM, returnable at an

CRLR No. 459 of 2026

2

early date.

Steps be taken within a week.

List on 26/05/2026 for hearing as fresh. April 23, 2026 dk/

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

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