[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Ailes Yadav @ Bhukharu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 April, 2026
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 334 of 2026
1 - Ailes Yadav @ Bhukharu S/o Shri Ramu Yadav Aged About 20
Years R/o Behind Sita Rice Mill, Milpara, P.S. City Kotwali, Durg,
District - Durg, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Arun Kumar Vishwakarma S/o Kamleshwar Vishwakarma Aged
About 22 Years R/o Behind Sita Rice Mill, Milpara, P.S. City Kotwali,
Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicants
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, Police Station Durg Kotwali,
District - Durg, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Rupes Singh Rajput S/o Chetan Singh Rajput Aged About 18
Years R/o Millpara, Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh,
(Complainant).
... Respondents
For Applicants : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate.
For State/Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Afroz Khan, P.L.
For Respondent No. 2 : None.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order On Board
08/04/2026
Heard.
1. This criminal revision petition under Section 438 r/w 442 of
BNSS, 2023 has been filed against the order dated 22.12.2025
passed by the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg,
District Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 240/2025 in
Digitally
signed by
HEERA HEERA
LAL SAHU
LAL Date:
SAHU 2026.04.08
17:20:50
+0530
connection with Crime No. 285/2025, registered at Police
Station - Durg Kotwali, District - Durg (C.G.), whereby the
application under Section 250 of BNSS filed by the
accused/applicants has been partly allowed and while
discharging the applicants for the offence under Sections 25 &
27 of Arms Act has refused to discharge from the offence under
Section 109 read with Section 3(5) of BNS.
2. As per the prosecution's case, a report has been lodged by
complainant, Rupesh Singh Rajput, stating that on 14.06.2025,
after returning from work, he went to the Civic Center. While
returning from there in the company of Sajjad Khan, he reached
the vicinity of Gojkul's house, situated in front of the Sita Rice
Mill. At that location, at about 10:20 pm, he encountered three
individuals: Omkar Dhankar, Ales Yadav, and Varun. Citing a
past grievance, they began hurling filthy abuses involving his
mother and sister. When the complainant objected to this
behaviour, Omkar, while brandishing a knife he was carrying
and issuing death threats, stabbed the complainant in the
abdomen with the intent to kill him; meanwhile, Ales and Varun
continued to shout vile abuses while physically assaulting the
complainant with their hands and fists. Based on this, a case
was registered, and after completion of the investigation, charge
sheet was filed under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 109 and 3(5)
of the BNS as well as Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there are three
accused persons in this case, one of whom is a juvenile. In fact,
it was the juvenile who inflicted the stab wound upon the
victim, whereas the present applicants played no role in the
incident; therefore, no offence is made out against the
applicants under Section 109 read with Section 3(5) of BNS.
Hence, the charge under Section 109 r/w Section 3(5) of BNS is
not made out against the present applicants, and they may be
discharged from the said charge.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the
arguments advanced by counsel for the applicant and submits
that there is sufficient material for the aforesaid charge;
therefore, no interference is required in the order impugned.
5. It is well settled position of law that at the stage of framing of
charge, the defence of accused could not be put forth. The
acceptance of the contention of learned counsel for the accused
would mean permitting the accused to adduce his defence at the
stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof at that
stage which is against the criminal jurisprudence. At the stage
of framing of charge, the court is not required to meticulously
examine the evidence on record and nor conduct a mini-trial.
The court would only consider whether prima facie material is
there or not to proceed with the trial. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in case of State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu,
reported in AIR 2017 SC 796, while dealing with the issue,
held that at the stage of framing of a charge, the Court is
concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to
focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is
strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence,
which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge
is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied.
6. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been again reiterated by their
Lordship in the case of State of M.P. vs. Deepak, 2019 (13)
SCC 62 and it has been held that at the stage of framing of
charge, the court has to consider the material only to find out if
there is a ground for presuming that the accused had
committed the offence and the court is not required to
appreciate the evidence on record and consider the allegations
on merits and to find out on the basis of the evidence recorded
is likely to be convicted or not. In para-16 of the said judgment
it has been held as under:
"16. It was also noted that at the stage of framing of
charges, the Court has to consider the material only
with a view to find out if there is a ground for
"presuming" that the accused had committed the offence
: ( Chitresh Kumar Chopra case [ Chitresh Kumar
Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] , SCC p. 613, para 25)
" 25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge,
the court is required to evaluate the material and
documents on record with a view to finding out if the
facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value,
disclose the existence of all the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this
limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it
cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept
as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this
stage, the court has to consider the material only with
a view to find out if there is ground for "presuming"
that the accused has 6 committed an offence and not
for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is
not likely to lead to a conviction."
7. In the matter of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Shiv Charan Bansal
and Others, 2020 (2) SCC 290, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has further held that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial
court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of
evidence or a roving inquiry into the same and has the power to
sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the
accused to proceed with the trial.
8. The statement of the victim, Rupesh Singh Rajput, recorded
under Section 181 of the BNSS, was examined; therein, he
stated that the three accused, acting in concert, assaulted him
and issued death threats. Furthermore, he alleged that the
juvenile (co-accused) took a knife from Arun (present applicant)
and, with the specific intent to kill, stabbed him in the
abdomen, while the applicants simultaneously continued to
assault him with their hands and fists. Thus, applying the
aforesaid principles in this case and after going through the
charge sheet, the victim's statement, and the other documents
annexed thereto, a prima facie case constituting an offence
under Section 109 r/w Section 3(5) of BNS is evident. As such,
at this stage, the defence adduced by the applicants cannot be
accepted as gospel truth; the same has to be decided on the
floor of the Court during trial while they are tested by virtue of
examination and cross-examination.
9. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, I am not inclined to
interfere with the order of framing of charge at this stage.
Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed at the
admission stage itself.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
H.L. Sahu
