Juber @ Mohd. Suhel and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2026)

Juber @ Mohd. Suhel and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision admitted; notice to respondent no.2 with steps within a week and fresh listing on 19.3.2026; proceedings of framing of charge to remain in abeyance till the next date of listing. No final relief on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court rightly summoned the revisionists after rejecting the police final reports on the basis of the same evidence collected during investigation. +3 more

Ratio / Principle

The criminal revision is admitted ('Admit.'); notice is to be issued to respondent no.2, steps to be taken within a week, and the matter is to be listed fresh on 19.3.2026.

Key takeaways

As interim measure, proceedings of framing of charge against the revisionists shall remain in abeyance till the next date of listing.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.), Criminal Revision No. 86 of 2026 under sections 438 CrPC/442 BNSS by Juber @ Mohd. Suhel and 3 others against the trial-court order dated 03.11.2025 in S.T. No.1200/2024 (State vs. Juber alias Mohd. Suhel and Others) — described in the judgment both as the summoning order and as the dismissal of the revisionists' discharge application — and against the order dated 06.5.2022 of ACJM Court No.19, Barabanki in FR No.270 of 2021. The case arises out of Case Crime No.116 of 2017, police station Safdarganj, District Barabanki, under sections 376D, 354, 504, 506, 452 IPC, in which three final reports (FR No.37/17 dated 24.7.2017, FR No.NIL of 14.11.2017 and final report no.49/18) were submitted in favour of the accused; the last was rejected on 06.5.2022 and summons were issued on a protest petition. An earlier petition under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS resulted in a direction to appear before the court below and move bail; the subsequent discharge application was dismissed on 03.11.2025. Contentions raised include that the Magistrate can direct only further investigation and not reinvestigation, that summons issued on the same evidence, and that medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version; the A.G.A. contended the trial court was within its right to summon after rejecting the final report. Held: revision admitted; notice to respondent no.2; matter to be listed fresh on 19.3.2026; proceedings of framing of charge to remain in abeyance till the next date of listing. Merits left undecided.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 86 of 2026

Juber @ Mohd. Suhel And 3 Others

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Avinash Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 27

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

Instant Criminal Revision under sections 438 CrPC/ 442 BNSS has been filed against the summoning order dated 03.11.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC Court no.36, Barabanki in S.T. No.1200/2024 (State vs. Juber alias Mohd. Suhel and Others) as well as against the order dated 06.5.2022 passed by learned ACJM Court No.19 Barabanki in FR No.270 of 2021 (Meena vs. Juber and Others (arising out of Case Crime No.116 of 2017, police station Safdarganj, District Barabanki under sections 376D, 354, 504, 506, 452 IPC. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that in the present case the prosecutrix was 50 years old lady at the time of incident lodged an FIR on 06.4.2017 under aforesaid sections against the revisionist with allegation that they committed tresspass in her house and abused her and committed rape on her one by one. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer submitted first final report on 24.7.2017 with finding that after investigation no offence is found to have been committed and investigation concluded with FR No.37/17 dated 24.7.2017 which was dismissed by Court and reinvestigation was directed on 18.5.2019. Second Investigating Officer concluded that house of the complainant is situated in 'village abadi' where accused persons reside along with their family. Time of occurrence is shown at 17:00 hrs. Incident was not confirmed. He filed FR No.NIL of 14.11.2017.

The police after undergoing further investigation again submitted final report no.49/18 for the third time in favour of the accused persons which was again rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 06.5.2022 and reinvestigtion was directed and a summoning order was passed on 06.5.2022 against accused- revisionist in the aforesaid sections on protest petition. The said summoning order was assailed by the revisionist before this Court through a petition under Section 482 CrPC /528 BNSS wherein a direction was issued to the revisionists to appear before the Court below and move bail application. Thereafter the revisionists have filed discharge application after being released on bail which has been dismissed by the learned trial court by the impugned order dated 03.11.2025.

CRLR No. 86 of 2026

2

Learned counsel has also submitted that learned trial court had summoned the revisionist after rejecting final report submitted by the police on the basis of same evidence collected during investigation. There are many procedural errors in impugned summoning order.

Learned court below has wrongly dismissed the discharge application filed by the revisionist. He lastly submitted that the Magistrate can only direct further investigation and not reinvestigation whereas in present case a reinvestigation was directed. Medical evidence does not corroborate prosecution version. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that the learned trial court is well within its right to summon the accused on the basis of evidence collected during investigation after rejecting final report. Admit.

Issue notice to respondent no.2. Steps be taken within a week. List on 19.3.2026 as fresh. Proceedings of framing of charge shall remain in abeyance till the next date of listing.

February 2, 2026 mks

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench