Imran Yusufbhai Nayani vs State Of Gujarat
2026 Latest Caselaw 1737 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Imran Yusufbhai Nayani vs State Of Gujarat on 27 March, 2026

Author: Gita Gopi

Bench: Gita Gopi

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/CR.RA/1328/2025                                  ORDER DATED: 27/03/2026

                                                                                                               undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                          R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
                                     SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 1328 of 2025
                       ==========================================================
                                                      IMRAN YUSUFBHAI NAYANI
                                                               Versus
                                                      STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR VIRAT POPAT for MR YASH J PATEL(11240) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                       MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                                           Date : 27/03/2026

                                                               ORDER

1. By way of this application, the applicant has challenged the

order dated 5.10.2024 below Exhs.16 and 17 passed by the

learned 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad

(Rural) in Sessions Case no. 170 of 2021 rejecting the prayer

of discharge, wherein the offence has been registered under

Sections 379, 285, 308, 120(b), 114 and 411 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 as well as Sections 15(2), 15(4), 16A of the

Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User

in Land) Amendment Act, 2011 and Sections 3 and 4 of

Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Chitan Popat along with learned

advocate Mr. Yash Patel for the applicant submitted that

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1328/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2026

undefined

taking into consideration the facts of the case, the present

applicant could not be charged Sections 379, 285, 308,

120(b), 114 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and no

provisions under Sections 15(2), 15(4), 16A of the Petroleum

and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land)

Amendment Act, 2011 and Sections 3 and 4 of Damage to

Public Property Act, 1984 could be invoked against the

applicant. Learned advocate Mr. Popat submitted that twice,

Panchnama was drawn, on 10.2.2021 and 22.2.2021, where

two contrary reports are on record and the material which

was collected earlier in point of time should be made the base

for the report and thus, it is stated that the applicant was

required to be discharged from the offence.

3. Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned APP for the State has submitted

that the learned Judge has recorded the arguments of the

advocates at length and has given reasons for rejecting the

application and hence, submitted that there is no merit in the

present application.

4. It appears that the provision under Section 226 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."

for short) has not been followed by the Public Prosecutor to

open the case, where through the provision, it requires that

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1328/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2026

undefined

when the accused appears or is brought before the Court in

pursuant of the commitment of the case under Section 209,

Public Prosecutor shall have to open his case by describing the

charge brought against the accused and by stating what

evidence he proposes to lead to prove the guilt of the

accused. The provision under Section 226 of the Cr.P.C. is

mandatory in nature. The learned Judge is not a mere post

office to frame the charge, but has to exercise the judicial

mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether

the case for trial has been made out by the prosecution.

5. After the accused is brought before the Court or appears

before the Court, it becomes necessary for the Public

Prosecutor to open the case and to produce all the documents

on which the reliance would be placed to prove the guilt of the

accused. That stage gives the liberty to the accused to resist

and to even have the knowledge of the material against him.

The learned Judge has not referred in the impugned order of

having directed the Public Prosecutor to adopt the procedure

as mandated under Section 226 of the Cr.P.C.

6. In the circumstances, let the Trial Court list the matter under

Section 226 of the Cr.P.C. and direct the Public Prosecutor to

open the case by describing the charge against the accused as

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1328/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2026

undefined

well as the evidence, which he proposes to place on record to

prove the guilt of the accused. The learned Trial Court Judge

is also directed that at that stage, the accused be granted an

opportunity of hearing along with the Public Prosecutor.

7. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of, with

specific directions to the learned Judge that the observations

made in the impugned order should not prejudice rights of

any of the parties and the applicant, if necessary, has the

liberty to prefer an application afresh under Section 227 of the

Cr.P.C.

(GITA GOPI,J) Maulik