TEJ NARAYAN SINGH AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2873 of 2026

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

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Kedar Nath Mishra, Rohit Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 86
             HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists as well as learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the material on record.

This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the present
revision and quash the impugned judgment and order dated 16.03.2026
passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, District Deoria under
section 107 (4) B.N.S.S. in Misc. Case No. 309 of 2026 (State Vs. Tej
Narayan Singh and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 18 of 2025 under
Sections 318(4), 319(2), 340(2) B.N.S. and under Section 3, 6 of The Indian
Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 and under Section 42(1), 42 (3) (C)(E)(F)
Telecommunication Act, 2023 and 66(C), 66(D) I.T. (Amended) Act, Police
Station Cyber Crime, District Deoria.

This criminal revision has been filed against the order passed by the learned
C.J.M. Deoria on 16.03.2026 under Section 107(2) B.N.S.S. by which the
immovable property has been directed to be attached while exercising the
powers under Section 107(4) B.N.S.S. This order has been passed ex-parte
without giving the opportunity of hearing to the revisionist. He further
submits that at the time, notice to show cause was issued to the revisionist he
was in jail and was released on bail on 23.02.2026. No personal notice was
served on him but this order was passed on the basis of report from police
station that notice was served on 05.02.2026 whereas he was in jail on that
day. In this way, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 16.03.2026
cannot be said to be lawful but is illegal and requests to set it aside and allow
the revision and also requests to direct the learned court concerned to decide
the application under Section 107(2) B.N.S.S. after giving an opportunity of
hearing to him.

Learned A.G.A. who represents the opposite party no. 2, the Station House
Officer opposed the prayer as aforesaid but could not dispute the fact that the
                                                                                             CRLR No. 2873 of 2026
                                                                    2

                                    revisionist was in jail and was released on bail on 23.02.2026 and notice
                                    could not be served on him personally on 05.02.2026.

                                    On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
                                    by learned counsel for the revisionists as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal
                                    of record, it appears that the application under Section 107 B.N.S.S. moved
                                    by the I.O. was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 309 of 2026 on
                                    29.01.2026 and notice was directed to be issued against the revisionist for
                                    12.02.2026. On 05.02.2026 the notice was said to be served personally on
                                    revisionist Tej Narayan Singh. The revisionist was in jail and was granted
                                    bail on 23.02.2026 by the learned court of Sessions in Bail Application No.
                                    121 of 2026. The order in question was passed on 16.03.2026 on the basis of
                                    police report that notice was served personally on the revisionist on
                                    05.02.2026 whereas he was in jail at that time, therefore, notice could not be
                                    served to the accused/revisionist on 05.02.2026. On 16.03.2026, in absence
                                    of revisionist the order in question was passed by learned C.J.M. while
                                    exercising the powers under Section 107 (2) B.N.S.S. by which the
                                    immovable property of the revisionist has been directed to be attached.

                                    In view of the aforesaid facts of the case, the order dated 16.03.2026 passed
                                    ex-parte by the learned Magistrate that cannot be said to be lawful but it
                                    being illegal is liable to be set aside.

                                    Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed and the order passed by the
                                    learned trial court dated 16.03.2026 being illegal is hereby set aside. The
                                    learned court concerned is directed to pass the order afresh on an application
                                    under Section 107 B.N.S.S. after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
                                    revisionist in accordance with law.
                                    May 5, 2026
                                    Suraj Srivastav
                                                                                (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SURAJ SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad