Bombay High Court
Xyz Through His Natural Guardian Samir ... vs State Of Maharastra Through Santacruz ... on 9 October, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:43481
28-revn329-2025.doc
Digitally signed
Ashish
ASHISH by ASHISH
SAHEBRAO
SAHEBRAO MHASKE
MHASKE Date: 2025.10.09
11:42:03 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.329 OF 2025
XYZ, through his natural
guardian Samir Vinod Vora ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Mr. Pranav Badheka, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashok
Pandey, Mr. Ravichandra Hegde and Mr. Kandarp
Trivedi i/by RHP Partners for the applicant.
Mrs. Rajashree V. Newton, APP for the respondent-
State.
Ms. Varshali Chavan, PSI, Santacruz Police Station, is
present.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : OCTOBER 7, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : OCTOBER 9, 2025
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Revision Application has been preferred by the
applicant challenging the judgment and order dated 4 June 2025
passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Suburban Juvenile
Justice Board, 21st Court, Dongri, Mumbai, below Exhibit-11 in CC
No.366/JW/2024, whereby the discharge application filed by the
applicant came to be rejected.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 6 April 2024,
at about 3.30 a.m., the complainant along with his friend, Mr.
Aditya Dhariwal, was alighting from the lift at Bastion Restaurant,
28-revn329-2025.doc
Dadar. At that time, he saw one of his acquaintances, Mr. Deeyan
Paraswani, in the company of the present applicant. Upon noticing
the complainant, the applicant allegedly called him a "Khalistani",
which resulted in a heated verbal altercation. During the said
exchange, both Deeyan Paraswani and the complainant tried to
mediate and diffuse the situation. It was then mutually agreed that
in order to resolve the matter amicably, they would meet near
Bombay Adda, Santacruz (West).
3. At around 4.20 a.m., the complainant and his friend Aditya
Dhariwal reached near Bombay Adda, where one Harsh Bagnani, a
friend of Deeyan, was already present. The complainant enquired
from Harsh whether Deeyan and the applicant were coming, to
which Harsh replied that they would arrive shortly. After some
time, Deeyan passed by the spot in a car. Thereafter, three persons
arrived on a scooter. Upon alighting, they started assaulting the
complainant and his friend Aditya. One of the assailants, wearing
an iron kada, struck the complainant on his ear, causing bleeding.
Aditya was also assaulted, resulting in profuse bleeding from his
nose. After inflicting injuries, the three accused persons fled the
scene on their scooter, driving in the wrong direction. The
complainant's driver immediately took both injured persons to
Hinduja Hospital, Khar (West), where they were given medical
treatment.
4. Thereafter, the complainant and Aditya went to the
complainant's house. Since Aditya's t-shirt was stained with blood,
it was kept at the complainant's residence, and was later recovered
by the police during investigation. Aditya informed the
28-revn329-2025.doc
complainant that he would report the incident to the police the
next day. The complainant, out of fear, did not inform his parents
immediately. On 7 April 2024, at about 10.00 p.m., the
complainant narrated the incident to his family, following which
his brother accompanied him to the police station, where the First
Information Report came to be registered.
5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Badheka, appearing for the
applicant, submitted that the applicant was not present at the spot
when the complainant and his friend were assaulted by the co-
accused. He submitted that the alleged meeting at Bombay Adda
was only for the purpose of amicable settlement of the earlier
quarrel that had occurred at Bastion Restaurant, Dadar. It was
further submitted that the statements of independent witnesses
clearly indicate that the complainant and his friends were under
the influence of alcohol at the relevant time when they reached
Bombay Adda.
6. Learned Senior Advocate further contended that the
prosecution cannot rely upon the statement of co-accused as the
same is devoid of evidentiary value. Referring to the impugned
order, it was submitted that the learned trial court failed to assign
any cogent or specific reasons for rejecting the discharge
application. The only observation recorded by the trial court was
that "the facts of the case narrated in the charge-sheet itself show
prima facie involvement of CICLs in the offence" and that the
defence had failed to show substantial grounds for discharge.
Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Orissa High Court
in Shibaram Sahu vs. State of Odisha (Vigilance Department) ,
28-revn329-2025.doc
2022 SCC OnLine Ori 2057, and upon the judgment of this Court
in Pruthviraj Baba Deshmukh vs. Mandabai Bajirao Bade & Ors. ,
Criminal Application No.5361 of 2011 (Aurangabad Bench)
decided on 9 December 2016, to contend that the trial court is
under a legal obligation to pass a reasoned order while deciding an
application for discharge.
7. Per contra, Mrs. Rajashree V. Newton, the learned APP drew
attention to the statements of eye-witnesses who were present
when the co-accused assaulted the complainant and his friend. It
was submitted that the witnesses have categorically stated that the
co-accused were friends of the applicant and that they had come to
the place of incident at the instance of the applicant. The witnesses
have further stated that the assault was carried out using an iron
object on the face and head of the victim, causing bleeding
injuries. Reference was also made to the medical certificate dated
6 April 2024, which records a CLW over the right lower nose,
swelling over the nose, and bleeding from the mouth and nose,
consistent with the nature of assault described by the witnesses.
8. The learned APP submitted that the material on record,
including the statements of witnesses and medical evidence, prima
facie establish that the assault was instigated by the applicant.
Hence, even if the applicant was not physically present at the
scene of the offence, his involvement through instigation is
evident. In these circumstances, the trial court rightly rejected the
discharge application. The impugned order, though brief, shows
application of mind, as the trial court observed that there exists
material sufficient to proceed with the trial, and that discharge can
28-revn329-2025.doc
be granted only when the charge appears groundless. It was
therefore submitted that the facts narrated in the charge-sheet
disclose a prima facie case against the applicant, and the revision
application deserves to be dismissed.
9. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the
material placed on record, the following reasons arise for
determination of the present Revision Application.
10. The challenge in this revision is directed against the order
dated 4 June 2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Dongri, Mumbai, rejecting the discharge
application filed by the applicant. The central question is whether
the trial court erred in refusing to discharge the applicant despite
the material relied upon by the prosecution being, according to the
applicant, insufficient to establish his prima facie involvement.
11. At the stage of considering an application for discharge, the
court is not required to meticulously weigh the evidence as would
be done at the conclusion of trial. The court is only to examine
whether the material placed on record, if taken at its face value,
discloses the commission of any offence and whether the charge
appears to be groundless. The settled principle, is that if there
exists a strong suspicion of involvement of the accused, the matter
must proceed to trial.
12. The prosecution material consists of the FIR, statements of
witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and the medical
certificate of the complainant and his friend. The statements of
eye-witnesses categorically state that the co-accused, who
28-revn329-2025.doc
assaulted the complainant and his friend, were known associates
of the present applicant and that they had arrived at the place of
incident at his instance. The statements further disclose that the
assault followed immediately after the altercation between the
applicant and the complainant at Bastion Restaurant, Dadar,
earlier that night.
13. The medical certificates of both the complainant and his
friend clearly record injuries in the form of lacerated wounds,
swelling, and active bleeding. These injuries match the manner in
which the assault is described by the witnesses. The injuries are
therefore not superficial or doubtful but are consistent with the
force and type of assault stated in the prosecution case. The
hospital records and the doctors' notes leave little room for doubt
that the victims were physically attacked, and that the assault was
deliberate and violent in nature.
14. The statements of the witnesses who were present at the
spot are also uniform and consistent. Each of them has stated that
the attack was carried out by persons who were friends or known
associates of the present applicant. Their accounts about the time,
place, and sequence of events are almost identical. Such
consistency at the initial stage gives reasonable support to the
version of the prosecution that the assault was not random but had
a background connected to the earlier quarrel between the
applicant and the complainant.
15. At this stage of the case, the court is not expected to make a
detailed examination of whether every fact will finally stand
28-revn329-2025.doc
proved. The court has only to see whether the material on record,
if accepted as true, shows that there is a reasonable ground to
believe that the accused was involved. When the witnesses state
that the assault was carried out at the instance of the applicant, it
creates a strong presumption that he played a role in planning or
directing the attack, even if he was not physically present at the
place of assault.
16. Under criminal law, a person may be held responsible not
only for the act he himself commits but also for acts done by others
when such acts are part of a common plan or intention shared by
them. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code recognizes this
principle. If several persons act together with the same intention to
cause harm, each one is held equally liable for the result of their
combined act.
17. Here, the material on record suggests that the applicant had
a quarrel with the complainant earlier that night, and soon
thereafter, his associates reached the place where the complainant
was waiting and assaulted him. This close sequence of events
indicates that the assault may have been a continuation of the
earlier dispute. It is, therefore, not possible at this stage to
conclude that the applicant had no connection with the incident.
18. Whether the applicant actually instigated or conspired for
the assault will be determined during the trial after the witnesses
are examined and cross-examined. For the present, there is
sufficient ground to hold that the material collected by the
prosecution, if accepted at face value, discloses a prima facie case
28-revn329-2025.doc
of common intention, making it necessary for the trial to proceed.
19. The contention of the learned Senior Advocate that the
statement of co-accused is inadmissible is correct as a proposition
of law. However, the present case does not rest solely upon such
statement. The material placed by the prosecution, including
statements of independent witnesses and medical record, discloses
a prima facie case sufficient to proceed with trial.
20. As regards the grievance that the trial court did not assign
detailed reasons while rejecting the discharge application, it is true
that judicial orders must reflect reasons to indicate application of
mind. However, it is equally settled that the extent of reasoning
required at the stage of discharge is limited. The trial court is not
expected to write a detailed judgment evaluating evidence. What is
necessary is that the order should show that the court has applied
its mind to the material and found sufficient ground to proceed
with trial. The impugned order records that the facts narrated in
the charge-sheet disclose prima facie involvement of the applicant
and that the grounds raised for discharge are not substantial. The
order thus satisfies the minimum requirement of application of
mind.
21. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is narrow. Unless the
order under challenge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or
failure of justice, interference is not warranted. The trial court has
considered the material available on record and reached a
plausible conclusion that there exists sufficient ground to proceed
against the applicant. No perversity or illegality is shown which
28-revn329-2025.doc
would justify interference under Section 397 read with Section
401 of Cr.P.C..
22. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am satisfied that the
trial court has rightly rejected the discharge application. The
material on record discloses a prima facie case and a strong
suspicion regarding the applicant's role in the offence. It is
therefore not a fit case for discharge.
23. Hence, the Revision Application stands dismissed. No order
as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
