Disposed¶13

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. v. Arvind Kumar Yadav

Allahabad HC29 Apr 2026CRLRD/186/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLRD 186/2026; State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Yadav (mis-recorded as Rajesh s/o Rajaram); dismissal of first informant's Section 319 CrPC application; summon additional accused named in FIR but not chargesheeted; ST No.46 of 2024; Case Crime No.312 of 2023; Section 302 IPC; Police Station Jalalpur; District Ambedkar Nagar; 70-day delay condonation pending; listed 14.05.2026 as fresh; Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra J; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench Court No.27; interim order April 29, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Interim relief only: permission to the learned AGA to rectify the respondent's name in the array of parties within three working days; revision listed afresh on 14.05.2026; condonation of the 70-day delay pending. No substantive issue decided. ¶13

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 186 of 2026

¶3

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajesh	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: G.A.
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:

¶7

Court No. - 27

¶8

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State respondent and perused the record.

¶10

Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the dismissal of application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the first informant in ST No.46 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.312 of 2023, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, wherein a prayer has been made to summon the proposed accused Arvind Kumar Yadav, who has been named in the FIR but not chargesheeted as additional accused to face trial along with co-accused person.

¶11

At the outset, the learned AGA submitted that, due to inadvertence, the name of the respondent has been wrongly mentioned as Rajesh, son of Rajaram, instead of Arvind Kumar Yadav, the proposed accused, in the memo of revision as well as in the application for condonation of delay and the affidavit filed in support thereof. It is therefore prayed that permission be granted to rectify the name of the respondent accordingly.

¶12