Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:100817 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15041 of 2025 Applicant :- Dharmendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Mani Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNSS) has been preferred against order dated 10.11.2023, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Gorakhpur in S.T. No.1983 of 2023 (State Vs. Ajay Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.56 of 2020, under Sections 380, 411, 413, 414 I.P.C., Police Station- Shahpur, District- Gorakhpur, whereby the application filed by applicant for discharge has been rejected. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is not named in the first information report and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Recovery of only two anklets and two bangles of white metal has been shown from applicant and there is no evidence that the same are of silver. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. It is further submitted that in respect of co-accused Arun Verma, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already granted indulgence and interim protection has been granted in respect of co-accused Arun Verma. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that learned trial Court has not considered facts of the matter in correct perspective and that impugned order is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and that a prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. It was submitted that recovery of stolen jewellery has been shown from applicant. It was further submitted that co-accused Arun Verma is running a jewellery shop and he was a bona-fide purchaser and thus applicant has no parity with case of co-accused Arun Verma. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. It is well settled that while considering discharge application, the Court is to exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out or not. At this stage, a mini trial cannot be held and the Court can shift and weigh the evidence for limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused is made out or not. Where material placed on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in rejecting application for discharge. The Court is not to hold mini trial by marshalling the evidence at this stage. 7. In the instant matter, the informant has lodged first information report regarding theft of jewellery from his house. Some part of stolen jewellery has been shown recovered from applicant. The case of co-accused Arun Verma is on different footing and his case was that he was a bona-fide purchaser and he has purchased the stolen jewellery from applicant-accused. Learned trial Court has considered entire facts in correct perspective and rejected the discharge application by a reasoned order. No material illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned order. Considering entire facts of the matter, no case for invocation of powers under Section 528 BNSS is made out. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merits and thus, liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 'SP'/- Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad