Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14743 Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 295 of 2025 Revisionist :- Shivam Yadav Thru. Father Om Prakash Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Bhup Chandra Singh,Abdul Raheem Khan,Ravi Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. The present criminal revision under Section 438 read with 442 BNSS 2023 (U/S397 R/W 401 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the revisionists Shivam Yadav and Kanhai alias Satyam Yadav against the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC-I), District Sultanpur in S.T. No.45 of 2021 whereby summoned the revisionists under Section 323, 325, 504, 506, 427, 304, 34 IPC relating to Case Crime No.45 of 2021, Police Station Chanda, District Sultanpur. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Brijesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for respondent State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the revisionists have been falsely implicated. During investigation, the Investigating Officer dropped the name of the revisionists after conducting thorough investigation. Learned court below while entertaining the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in a casual manner has summoned the revisionists. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the revision. It has been submitted by learned A.G.A. that complicity of the accused revisionist is evident. Even from the First Information Report which was lodged by none other than the deceased himself. There are five injured in this case. Out of five injured, P.W. 1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have given statement before the learned trial court alleging the complicity of the revisionists. Although general role of holding lathi and danda in their hand has been assigned to the revisionist, however, their participation in the crime cannot be disputed as it is cross case. The factum of cross case is admitted by learned counsel for the revisionists. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that all throughout right from the First Information Report, which was lodged by the deceased and which has been taken as dying declaration the accused revisionist are named. They are also named in the statement of the injured under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Again they have been named in the statement given by three prosecution witnesses namely P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, therefore, does not warrant leniency. It is not a case where during investigation their names were not there and all of sudden some witnesses have taken their name as a accused. Perused the record. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92, in paragraphs 105 and 106, has held as under:- "105. Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. 106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. In Section 319 CrPC the purpose of providing if “it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence” is clear from the words “for which such person could be tried together with the accused”. The words used are not “for which such person could be convicted”. There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused." In this case, learned trial court, on the basis of the evidence given to it by three injured witnesses i.e. P.W. 1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, who have alleged the complicity of the revisionist in the crime, has after finding more than prima facie case and after arriving at the satisfaction required to summon the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has summoned the accused. Learned trial court has also considered the guidelines issued by the Constitution Bench in the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab reported in (2023) 1 SCC 289. Thus, considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court (surpa) and material available on record before the learned court below, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned. The revision, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Learned counsel for the revisionists, at this stage, submits that the revisionists are the real brothers. Revisionist no.2 is a Poll Vaulter and a National level athlete and thus, he may be permitted to move bail application, which may be directed to be considered sympathetically by the learned court below. In view of the above, it is provided that in case, revisionist no.2 surrenders before the learned trial court within twenty days' from today and move appropriate bail application, the same shall be decided sympathetically, expeditiously, as per law. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench