Allahabad High Court

RIYAZ AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 24 February 2026
Bench: ABDUL SHAHID

Holding

The High Court held that the Sessions Court's order was valid and free of illegality, and therefore dismissed the revision.

Summary

The High Court of Allahabad heard a criminal revision filed by Riyaz and others against a Sessions Court order that had framed charges under Sections 333, 115(2), 110, 351(2) and 352 of the B.N.S. The revisionists contended that the order was not a speaking or reasoned one, that the medical report on the injured Yusuf was unreliable due to delays and inconsistencies, and that the facts did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 110 (attempt to commit culpable homicide). The State argued that Yusuf sustained multiple injuries, including a grievous skull fracture, and that there was no legal defect in the charge‑framing. The Court held that observations made at the bail stage are not determinative at trial, that the medical evidence presented was sufficient, and that the Sessions Court had not erred in its reasoning. Consequently, the revision was dismissed as there was no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.

Issues considered

Whether the Sessions Court erred in framing a charge under Section 110 of the B.N.S. on the basis of the nature and extent of injuries suffered by the victim.
Whether the medical report relied upon by the revisionists is unreliable due to delay and contradictory statements.
Whether observations recorded at the bail stage can be considered for charge‑framing at trial.
Whether the Sessions Court order qualifies as a speaking and reasoned order as required by law.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 110, 115(2), 333, 351(2), 352

Subjects

criminal revision
Section 110
attempt to commit culpable homicide
medical evidence
charge framing
bail observations
high court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1447 of 2026

Riyaz And 2 Others
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)

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

Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 22.01.2026
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kannauj, in Sessions Trial No. 536 of 2025 (
State of U.P. v. Riyaz and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 209 of 2024, under
Sections 333, 115(2), 110, 351(2), and 352 of the B.N.S., Police Station Indergarh,
District Kannauj.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the impugned order dated
22.01.2026 is neither a speaking nor a reasoned order and is not justifiable; therefore,
it is liable to be set aside. An application had been filed seeking discharge of the
revisionists under Section 110 of the B.N.S. It is contended that the ingredients of
Section 110 of the B.N.S. are not attracted in the present case and that the revisionists
are liable to be discharged. Section 110 of the B.N.S. reads as follows:

"Section 110. Attempt to commit culpable homicide.—Whoever does any
act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that,
if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or
with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has relied upon the injury report of the injured
Yusuf, which reflects the following injuries:

"Medicological injury report:
1. LW 3x1 cm (+) over Rt. side frontal aspect of skull swelling 4x3 cm (+) fresh
bleeding (+).
2. Contusion 3x1 cm (+) over Lt. side of neck joint below Lt. ear colour red.
CRLR No. 1447 of 2026
2

3. Contusion 14x2 cm (+) over Rt.Scapular region of back colour red.
4. Contusion 4x3 cm and 10x2 cm (+) over Lt. scapular regin of back colour red. Adv.
X-Ray Lt. shoulder with scapular Ap
5. Contusion 14x4 cm (L) side ofmiddle of back swelling 6x8 cm (+) colour red Adv.
X-Ray chest Ap.
6. Contusion 14x2 cm (+) over Rt. side lower region of back colour red.
7. Pain and swelling 4x4 cm (+) over Rt. forearm
8. Pain and swelling 3x2 cm (+) over Lt. forearm
9. Pain and swelling over ant. aspect of Rt. hand
Opinion- All injuries are caused by hard and blunt object injury No. 1, 4 & 5 KUO
Adv. X-Ray to CDH Injury while rest injuries simple in nture duration about fresh."
Radiological Report:
X-Ray Skull Ap/lateral- Show a crack fracture at Rt. fronto parietal region.
X-Ray chest Ap- NAD
X-Ray Lt. shoulder with scapula- Ap- NAD
Supplementary report:
Pt. was advised
(1) X-Ray knee (2) X-Ray chest and (3) X-Ray Lt. shoulder with scapular
Pt. was referred to CDH Kannauj.
Radiologist opinion of CDH Kannauj
(1) X-Ray skull Ap/Lat- Show crack fracture at Rt. fronto parietal region.
X-Ray Chest- Ap-NAD
X-RAY Lt. shoulder with scapula- NAD"

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that there was a delay of 17 days in
the X-ray report; the medical report was prepared by one doctor while the statement
was recorded by another; and, therefore, the injury report is unreliable. It is further
submitted that reliance has been placed on findings recorded at the stage of bail and
that no offence under Section 110 of the B.N.S., 2023 is made out. It is also submitted
that the next date fixed before the trial court is 27.02.2026 for framing of charge.
Learned counsel further submitted that the statement of Dr. Praveen Kumar records
treatment of injured persons Sunaina and Mulayam, which is contrary to the present
case, as per the F.I.R., the injured is Yusuf. It is, therefore, submitted that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside and the criminal revision be allowed.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State submitted that there is no mandatory
requirement of any specific type of injury for framing a charge under Section 110 of
the B.N.S., 2023. The injured Yusuf sustained several injuries, including a fracture.
There is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order, and the criminal
revision is liable to be dismissed.

7. It is settled law that any observations made at the stage of grant of bail are not to be
considered at the stage of trial. Such observations are prima facie in nature and do not
CRLR No. 1447 of 2026
3

affect the merits of the case. The case is to be decided on the basis of evidence
recorded during trial.

8. The incident is stated to have occurred on 29.07.2024 at 20:00 hours. The F.I.R.
was lodged on 30.07.2024 at 18:15 hours under Sections 352, 351(2), 115(2), and 333
of the B.N.S., 2023.

9. After detailed investigation, charge sheet has been filed under section 333, 115(2),
351(2), 352 and 110 B.N.S., 2023. As per medical report submitted by the revisionists
themselves with the present criminal revision as Annexure No. 3 injured Yusuf has
been duly medically examined on the date of the incident itself on 29.07.2024 at 11.00
P.M. and he has suffered 9 injuries, the injury no. 1, 4, and 5 are kept under
observations, advised X-ray. Injury no. 1 is lacerated wound 3x1 cm (+) over Rt. side
frontal aspect of skull swelling 4x3 cm (+) fresh bleeding (+) and injuries on the neck
join scapular region, left shoulder. In the X-report of the Yusuf/injured X-Ray Skull
Ap/lateral- Show a crack fracture at Rt. fronto parietal region. The supplementary
report is dated 14.08.2024 but it is based on the examination of Yusuf/injured on
29.07.2024 where X-ray skull Ap/Lat- Show crack fracture at Rt. fronto parietal
region. Opinion-according to Radiological opinion injury no. 1 is grievous in nature
while rest other simple in nature. The injured/Yusuf has suffered several injuries and
injury no. 1 which is caused into the skull and is caused fracture and which is opined
as grievous in nature and there are other injures on the vital parts of the body of the
injured also.

10. In view of all these facts, reason and circumstances, there is neither any illegality
or irregularity in the impugned order.

11. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly.

February 25, 2026
K.K. Maurya
(Abdul Shahid,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…