Raghav vs State Of U.P. And Another

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist 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 set aside the ex-parte judgment and order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the learned Chief Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1, Etah in Session Case No. 572 of 2026 (State Vs. Raghav) arising out of Case Crime No. 733 of 2017 under Section 306 altered under section 305 of I.P.C., Police Station Jaithara, District Etah whereby the learned trial court directed to the revisionist to furnish the bail bonds to the satisfaction to the court.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the deceased was minor at the time of alleged incident. He further submits that in this case an F.I.R. was lodged as Case Crime No. 733 of 2017 under Section 306 and altered under section 305 of I.P.C., Police Station Jaithara, District Etah. After investigation police submitted final report as the offence was not found to be established. On Final report, protest application was moved on the part of informant which was allowed by order dated 22.10.2019 and the revisionist was summoned straightaway under Section 306 I.P.C. During the course of trial the learned trial court has directed to alter the charge under Section 305 I.P.C. on the place of Section 306 I.P.C. on 01.04.2026. He has already obtained bail and now he is to surrender and get bail again.

The learned trial court passed the order in question illegally, therefore, requests to set it aside and allow the present revision.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case since the deceased was minor at the time of alleged incident that was the reason the offence for abetment to commit suicide by a minor child are not an offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. that was the reason the learned trial court has altered the charge from Section 306 I.P.C. to Section 305 I.P.C. There is no any illegality or impropriety in the order dated 01.04.2026.

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, the order passed by the learned court dated 01.04.2026, since the deceased said to have been abetted to commit suicide was minor at the time of alleged incident that is the reason offence under Section 305 I.P.C. is made out on the place of Section 306 I.P.C. The learned trial court has altered the charge from Section 306 I.P.C. to Section 305 I.P.C. keeping in view the aforesaid facts of minority of the deceased. There is no any illegality or impropriety in the order, therefore, it does not warrant interference by this Court.

So far as the submission regarding fresh bail by the revisionist is concerned, the learned trial court has already directed him to furnish fresh bail bonds to the satisfaction of the court which makes it clear that the revisionist is not to apply for bail but only to furnish fresh bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial court as directed by the learned court itself.

Accordingly, this revision is disposed of finally.

(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)

May 7, 2026

Suraj Srivastav