Subedar And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another). The order dated

1. Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for State-respondent.

2. By means of the present application, the applicants, who were summoned in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., have challenged the order dated 03.06.2025 passed in Session Trial No. 11/2022 (State Vs. Krishna Prasad & Another) whereby the trial Court namely Session Judge, Shrawasti rejected the application preferred by the applicants seeking discharge.

3. The application seeking discharge was preferred by taking benefit of this Court's order dated passed in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 8883 of 2024 (Subedar And Another Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another). The order dated 01.10.2024 reads as under :- "Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. The present application has been filed by the applicants for the following main relief:- "WHEREFORE, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the impugned summoning order dated 04.06.2024 passed by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Shrawasti in Session Case No. 11/2022 (State of U.P. Versus Krishna Prasad and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0345/2019, Under Sections-323, 325, 308, 504 & 506 I.P.C. pertaining to Police Station-Kotwali Bhinga, Disrtrict-Shrawasti by which the applicants/petitioners have been summoned upon the application filed under section-319 Cr. P.C. by the learned trial court in a illegal and arbitrary manner, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this petition, in the interest of justice." After arguing, at some length, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that liberty may be given to the applicants to file bail application before the trial court which may be decided in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51 as also to prefer a discharge application before the court below and the same may be decided expeditiously. Learned AGA has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present application is disposed of with liberty as prayed for and with a direction to the court below that if the applicants apply for bail before the Court concerned, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. Liberty is also granted to the applicants to move discharge application before the court below and the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. Taking note of the facts of the case and also the observation made in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra), this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to observe that it is expected from the Police Officer concerned that for a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants apply for bail, whichever is earlier, he would not take any coercive action against the applicants in the aforesaid case. With the aforesaid observations, the present application is disposed of."

4. From the above quoted order of this Court, it is apparent that by means of APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 8883 of 2024, the present applicants challenged the order dated 04.06.2024 passed by the trial Court in exercise of its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and after arguing at length, learned counsel for the applicants took liberty to avail the benefit of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51.

5. The above quoted order also indicates that this Court provided liberty to the applicants to move an application seeking discharge. It appears that this part of the order could not be corrected inadvertently.

6. An application seeking discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. by an accused, who has been summoned in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., is not maintainable as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jogender Yadav Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2015 ALL-MR (Cri).3707 (SC), followed by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2024 in the case of Suresh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. (APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 4695 of 2023).

7. Further, in the instant case, the injured witness namely P.W.2/Ram Achaivar S/o Ram Pheran sustained following injuries who was examined on 11.11.2019 at 09:40 a.m. at CDH Bhinga, Shrawasti: - 1- Pt. is conscous, well oriented in time, place and person. 2- Contused swelling Lt. forearm, 10x5cm, 6cm below Lt. elbow joint dorsum of forearm and advised x-ray Lt. forearm-AP-Lat. 3- L/W x contused swelling 4x.3cm wound size 1.5x1cm over Lt. elbow back and advised x-ray Lt. elbow joint-AP-Lat. 4- L.W. Rt. arm 1.5x0.5cm over Lt. aspect, Rt. elbow joint 5cm above Rt. elbow joint and advised x-ray Rt. arm-AP-lat. 5- L/W Lt. leg, 1x0.5cm x bone deep, 5cm above Lt. knee joint (shin of tibia) and advised x-ray Lt. leg-AP-Lat. 6- L.W., Lt. leg, 5x1cm x bone deep med portion of Lt. leg (shin of tibia) and advised x-ray Lt. leg-AP-Lat. 7-L.W. Lt. leg, 2cm x 1cm x bone deep 2cm above medial mallelos. 8- Rt. foot abrasion 1x1cm over dorsum foot, Lt. above back Rt. great toe base.

8. The FIR was lodged on the same day i.e. on 11.11.2019 registered at Police Station - Bhinga Kotwali, District - Shrawasti, as FIR No. 345/2019, under Section 323, 325, 308, 504, 506 IPC.

9. The injured witness Ram Achaiva, examined as P.W.2, on oath before the trial Court indicated the names of the applicants.

10. It is to be noted that principles are well settled with regard to testimony of injured witness as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Mansingh (2003) 10 SCC 414; Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P. (2010) 10 SCC 259; State of U.P. vs. Naresh; (2011) 4 SCC 324 and Laxman Singh vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (2021) 9 SCC 191.

11. Taking note of the aforesaid fact borne out from the application as also the law on the issue, this Court finds no force in the present application. Accordingly, it is rejected. Order Date :-21.7.2025 Mohit Singh/- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for State-respondent.

2. By means of the present application, the applicants, who were summoned in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., have challenged the order dated 03.06.2025 passed in Session Trial No. 11/2022 (State Vs. Krishna Prasad & Another) whereby the trial Court namely Session Judge, Shrawasti rejected the application preferred by the applicants seeking discharge.

3. The application seeking discharge was preferred by taking benefit of this Court's order dated passed in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 8883 of 2024 (Subedar And Another Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another). The order dated 01.10.2024 reads as under :- "Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. The present application has been filed by the applicants for the following main relief:- "WHEREFORE, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the impugned summoning order dated 04.06.2024 passed by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Shrawasti in Session Case No. 11/2022 (State of U.P. Versus Krishna Prasad and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0345/2019, Under Sections-323, 325, 308, 504 & 506 I.P.C. pertaining to Police Station-Kotwali Bhinga, Disrtrict-Shrawasti by which the applicants/petitioners have been summoned upon the application filed under section-319 Cr. P.C. by the learned trial court in a illegal and arbitrary manner, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this petition, in the interest of justice." After arguing, at some length, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that liberty may be given to the applicants to file bail application before the trial court which may be decided in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51 as also to prefer a discharge application before the court below and the same may be decided expeditiously. Learned AGA has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present application is disposed of with liberty as prayed for and with a direction to the court below that if the applicants apply for bail before the Court concerned, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. Liberty is also granted to the applicants to move discharge application before the court below and the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. Taking note of the facts of the case and also the observation made in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra), this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to observe that it is expected from the Police Officer concerned that for a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants apply for bail, whichever is earlier, he would not take any coercive action against the applicants in the aforesaid case. With the aforesaid observations, the present application is disposed of."

4. From the above quoted order of this Court, it is apparent that by means of APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 8883 of 2024, the present applicants challenged the order dated 04.06.2024 passed by the trial Court in exercise of its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and after arguing at length, learned counsel for the applicants took liberty to avail the benefit of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51.

5. The above quoted order also indicates that this Court provided liberty to the applicants to move an application seeking discharge. It appears that this part of the order could not be corrected inadvertently.

6. An application seeking discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. by an accused, who has been summoned in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., is not maintainable as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jogender Yadav Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2015 ALL-MR (Cri).3707 (SC), followed by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2024 in the case of Suresh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. (APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 4695 of 2023).

7. Further, in the instant case, the injured witness namely P.W.2/Ram Achaivar S/o Ram Pheran sustained following injuries who was examined on 11.11.2019 at 09:40 a.m. at CDH Bhinga, Shrawasti: - 1- Pt. is conscous, well oriented in time, place and person. 2- Contused swelling Lt. forearm, 10x5cm, 6cm below Lt. elbow joint dorsum of forearm and advised x-ray Lt. forearm-AP-Lat. 3- L/W x contused swelling 4x.3cm wound size 1.5x1cm over Lt. elbow back and advised x-ray Lt. elbow joint-AP-Lat. 4- L.W. Rt. arm 1.5x0.5cm over Lt. aspect, Rt. elbow joint 5cm above Rt. elbow joint and advised x-ray Rt. arm-AP-lat. 5- L/W Lt. leg, 1x0.5cm x bone deep, 5cm above Lt. knee joint (shin of tibia) and advised x-ray Lt. leg-AP-Lat. 6- L.W., Lt. leg, 5x1cm x bone deep med portion of Lt. leg (shin of tibia) and advised x-ray Lt. leg-AP-Lat. 7-L.W. Lt. leg, 2cm x 1cm x bone deep 2cm above medial mallelos. 8- Rt. foot abrasion 1x1cm over dorsum foot, Lt. above back Rt. great toe base.

8. The FIR was lodged on the same day i.e. on 11.11.2019 registered at Police Station - Bhinga Kotwali, District - Shrawasti, as FIR No. 345/2019, under Section 323, 325, 308, 504, 506 IPC.

9. The injured witness Ram Achaiva, examined as P.W.2, on oath before the trial Court indicated the names of the applicants.

10. It is to be noted that principles are well settled with regard to testimony of injured witness as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Mansingh (2003) 10 SCC 414; Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P. (2010) 10 SCC 259; State of U.P. vs. Naresh; (2011) 4 SCC 324 and Laxman Singh vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (2021) 9 SCC 191.

11. Taking note of the aforesaid fact borne out from the application as also the law on the issue, this Court finds no force in the present application. Accordingly, it is rejected. Order Date :-21.7.2025 Mohit Singh/- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench