Allahabad HC: Defective Probe Not Ground for Discharge; Framing Charges Upheld

A Single‑Judge bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh heard an application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. No. 44853 of 2024 filed by Amir @ Jamir Ahmad challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC‑II, Prayagraj dated 14.8.2024 rejecting his discharge application and the subsequent charge framing order dated 12.9.2024 in Sessions Trial No. 2554 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 372 of 2019 (offences under Section 307 IPC, provisions of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960). The State was represented by the A.G.A.

The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the trial court's orders, holding that defects or alleged manipulation in the investigation did not warrant discharge at the pre‑trial stage where material on record prima facie implicated the accused. The court reviewed binding precedents and procedural provisions governing discharge and framing of charge under Sections 227/228 Cr.P.C. and the corresponding BNSS provisions, and concluded that “an accused cannot be acquitted on account of defects in investigation, much less discharged on the same grounds.” 

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “This Court is of the view that the charge can be framed on strong suspicion against the accused persons. There is no material contradiction with regard to the prosecution case mentioned in the first information report, as well as in the statements of the witnesses. The statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation cannot be brushed aside at the stage of considering the discharge application or framing of a charge. It is well-settled law that at the stage of considering the discharge application, the defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration. The ground taken by the applicant in the present application is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated at the time of framing the charge. This Court is of the view that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court at the appropriate stage. It is a crystallized judicial view that at the stage of discharge, the court is to examine the materials only with a view to being satisfied that a prima facie case of the commission of the offence alleged has been made out against the accused. If there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, the court can justifiably say that a prima facie case exists against the accused. Marshalling and appreciation of facts is not in the domain of the trial court at the time of considering a discharge application. The broad test to be applied is whether the material on record, if unrebutted, makes a conviction reasonably possible. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at that stage.”

Background
The FIR dated 12.12.2019 recorded that police on patrol received information about a truck illegally transporting bulls from Chitrakoot to Bihar; two persons escaped and five, including the applicant, were alleged to have been arrested at the scene and the truck, carrying 19 bulls, was seized. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, alleged that he was not arrested on the spot but summoned to Ghoorpur Police Station and that a material entry in the case diary (Parcha No. SCD‑9) recording his Gunner's statement to that effect was later removed or tampered with. The applicant earlier challenged the charge‑sheet in an application under Section 482 (No. 39035 of 2022), which this Court had refused on 17.1.2023. He also relied on affidavits and case‑diary entries asserting unfair investigation; the Investigating Officer submitted a supplementary charge sheet on 8.2.2022 and the trial court declined discharge on 14.8.2024 and framed charges on 12.9.2024.

The High Court surveyed Supreme Court and Division Bench precedents (including Edakkandi Dineshan, Ram Bali, Paras Yadav, Soma Chakravarty, Sajjan Kumar and others) and examined the statutory tests under Cr.P.C. and BNSS for discharge and framing of charge. The court reiterated established principles: at the discharge stage, the court must consider the prosecution material as true for limited purposes, sift evidence to the extent of determining whether a prima facie case or strong suspicion existed, and refrain from conducting a mini‑trial or appreciating defence evidence. Applying those principles, the court found no material contradiction in the prosecution's case that would justify discharge and held that the question of manipulation or defects in investigation went to trial and credibility, not to preclude framing of charge. The petition was therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs, and the Registrar (Compliance) was directed to send a copy of the order to the trial court.

Case Details:
Case No.: Application U/S 528 B.N.S.S. No. - 44853 of 2024
Case Title: Amir @ Jamir Ahmad Versus State of U.P. and Another
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Manish Tiwary, Senior Counsel; Mayank Chandra; Aushim Luthra; Surya Pratap Singh
For the Respondent(s): Pankaj Kumar, A.G.A.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 92