Uttarakhand High Court
Revisionists vs State Of Uttarakhand on 13 July, 2026
UKHC010107812021
2026:UHC:5733
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 217 of 2021
13 July, 2026
Dr. Yuvraj Pant and
Smt. Rashmi Pant
--Revisionists
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
and Smt. Parveen Jahan
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. R.S. Sammal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Vishal
Singh Mahara, learned counsel for the revisionists.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned D.A.G. alongwith Mr. Vikas Uniyal,
learned Brief Holder for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
The present criminal revision is preferred against
the impugned order dated 17.08.2021 passed by learned
2nd Additional Sessions Judge, District Nainital in
Session Trial No. 26 of 2018, State Vs. Umesh Singh
Bankoti, under Section 302 of IPC, registered at Police
Station-Haldwani, District Nainital, by which, the
application filed by the prosecution under Section 319
Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionists were summoned
as accused to face trial under Section 302 IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that:-
1
UKHC010107812021
2026:UHC:5733
An FIR was lodged by mother of the deceased on25.06.2017 under Section 302 IPC, wherein, it was
alleged that the deceased was admitted for de-addiction
in the Nirvana Drug Addiction Eradication/Rehabilitation
Centre, Heera Nagar, Haldwani, Disrict Nainital, where
revisionist no. 2 is the coordinator. It is further alleged
that her son-in-law Mr. Mohsin received a phone call in
the night of 23.06.2017 at about 11:00-11:30 PM,
wherein, revisionist no. 2 informed him that 10-12
patients have escaped from the Rehabilitation centre and
thereafter when his son-in-law reached there, he found
that the deceased was lying injured and unconscious in
the ambulance of rehabilitation centre. When her son-in-
law asked them to take the deceased to Sushila Tiwari
Hospital, the staff of the Rehabilitation Centre refused to
take the deceased in their ambulance car. Thereafter, the
staff members of the rehabilitation centre shifted the
deceased to the car of Mr. Mohsin and Mr. Mohsin took
the deceased to Sushila Tiwari Hospital, Haldwani, where
the doctors declared him brought dead. After
investigation, chargesheet was submitted under Section
302 IPC against one Umesh Singh Bankoti, who was the
driver in Rehabilitation Centre. The charge framed
against him was that while trying to catch hold of the
2
UKHC010107812021
2026:UHC:5733
deceased, the accused stabbed him which led to the
death of the deceased. The Investigating Officer recovered
the knife from the spot from where such incident was
alleged to have taken place. Thereafter, trial was
committed and on the basis of statement of the PW-3,
Mr. Mohsin, who was son-in-law of the informant, the
application filed by the prosecution under Section 319
Cr.P.C. was allowed, wherein, he has stated that he
received a phone call in the night of 23.06.2017 at about
11:00-11:30 PM whereby revisionist no. 2 had informed
him that 12-13 inmates of the Centre have tried to
escape from the Centre and the staff of the Centre have
gone in their search. Thereafter, PW3, son-in-law of the
informant arrived at the Centre where he was told that
deceased is lying in the ambulance and when he asked to
take him to Sushila Tiwari Hospital, they refused. Then
he himself took him to the hospital where the doctors
declared him brought dead.
3. Mr. R.S. Sammal, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the revisionists would submit that
revisionist no. 1 is a psychologist while revisionist no. 2
is the coordinator of the Rehabilitation Centre, Haldwani
where the deceased was admitted. Learned Senior
Counsel for the revisionists would also submit that the
3
UKHC010107812021
2026:UHC:5733
trial has concluded and the main accused has been
acquitted in the trial and there is no evidence found
against the chargesheeted person inasmuch as even the
weapon alleged to have been used in the incident was not
verified and it was proved doubtful. It is further
submitted that the revisionist no.1 only makes a day visit
to the De-Addition/Rehabilitation Centre and he has no
role to play in the affairs of the Centre while revisionist
no. 2 is Coordinator of the Centre and she also leaves the
Centre everyday in the evening. It is further submitted
that during the investigation and also in the chargesheet,
no role has been assigned to the revisionists.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the revisionists has
placed reliance upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 926,
wherein, it is held that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
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
4
UKHC010107812021
2026:UHC:5733
evidence led before the court that such power should be
exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. For
ready reference, paragraph nos. 105 and 106 of the
judgment are extracted hereinbelow:-
“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.”
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the revisionists has
further placed reliance upon a judgment passed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Periyasami and
Others Vs. S. Nallasamy, reported in (2019) 4 SCC 342.
For ready reference, paragraph no. 11 of the judgment is
extracted hereinbelow:-
“11. The learned counsel for the appellants also refers to a recent
order of this Court in Labhuji Amratji Thakor v. State of
Gujarat [Labhuji Amratji Thakor v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 12
SCC 644 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2547] , where, the order of
summoning the additional accused on the basis of the statements
of some of the witnesses in the witness box was set aside for the5
UKHC0101078120212026:UHC:5733
reason that there is not even suggestion of any act done by the
appellants amounting to an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. It was held
as under : (SCC OnLine SC para 12)“… The Court has to consider substance of the evidence, which
has come before it and as laid down by the Constitution Bench
in Hardeep Singh [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC
92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] has to apply the test i.e. ‘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.’….”
6. On this basis, learned Senior Counsel has
submitted that in the whole investigation, not a single
doubt has been raised against any of the revisionists and
moreover it is submitted that in the trial, the person
namely Umesh Singh Bankoti, who was chargesheeted
under Section 302 of IPC have also been acquitted vide
order dated 23.04.2026 passed by learned 2nd Additional
Session Judge, Nainital in Session Trial No. 26 of 2018. It
is thus submitted that the impugned order deserves to be
set aside and the criminal revision deserves to be
allowed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
8. This Court finds that the application of the
prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. have been allowed
by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, District
Nainital only on the basis of the statement of PW-3. This
6
UKHC010107812021
2026:UHC:5733
Court, after perusing the statement of PW-3, would reveal
that no allegation or role has been assigned against the
revisionists in relation to the said incident. The Trial
Court, while considering the substance of evidence, has
to apply the test that there should be 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. Before
allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the
evidence against the persons, who have been made the
accused, should be strong and cogent rather than mere
suspicion. The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is
extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. The
Court must assess whether the evidence on record, if
unrebutted, reasonably indicates the involvement of the
proposed accused.
9. In view of the above, this Court finds that there
was no cogent and strong evidence against the
revisionists and the application under Section 319
Cr.P.C. have been allowed and the revisionists have been
summoned as proposed accused only on the basis of
suspicion.
10. Accordingly, the criminal revision is allowed.
7
UKHC010107812021
2026:UHC:5733
Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.08.2021
passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, District
Nainital in Session Trial No. 26 of 2018; State Vs. Umesh
Singh Bankoti (now-Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2024) is set-
aside.
11. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed
of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
13.07.2026
Ujjwal
8
