1 2025:CGHC:59656 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3727 of 2025 1 - Atul Dansena S/o Shri Kartikeshwar Dansena, Aged About 23 Years R/o Indira Nagar, P.S. Kotwali Raigarh, Tah. And Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. City Kotwali, Raigarh, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Ashok Jaiswal S/o Late Shri Narayan Prasad Jaiswal, R/o Laxmipur, Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Binu Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Veerma Order on Board 09/12/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 2 06.11.2025 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge Raigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 45/2025 whereby the learned First Additional Sessions Judge Raigarh without considering the material available on record has rejected the application for providing one opportunity of hearing on charge after supply of electronic records. 3. Brief facts of the case are that That as per prosecution story the complainant/respondent No. 02 lodged the complaint stating that he is relative of deceased Sitaram Jaiswal and his sister deceased Annapurna Jaiswal, that the complainant and her younger sister Geeta Jaiswal visited to the house of the deceased everyday where they have lunch and dinner jointly, that on 12.01.2025 also the complainant along with his sister went to the house of the deceased Sitaram Jaiswal and his sister deceased Annapurna Jaiswal and returned to his home at about midnight and again visited to the house of the deceased on 13.01.2025 at about 12 noon, at that time the door was locked from the outside, then the complainant raised alarm but no response was there, thereafter he called the neighbor and relative Kavi Jaiswal and informed him that no one is responding. Then the neighbor Kavi Jaiswal jumped inside the house and saw the dead body of Sitaram Jaiswal and his sister Annapurna Jaiswal. That the unknown persons had committed their murder by causing grievous injury in their head with bricks. On the complaint of the complainant P.S. City Kotwali Raigarh registered Dehati Nalsi and 3 Dehati Marg Intimation, thereafter registered the Crime No. 24/2025 on 13.01.2025 for the offence punishable U/s 103 (1) of B.N.S., the copy of the F.I.R. dated 13.01.2025 registered at P.S. City Kotwali Raigarh is being annexed herewith as per Annexure P-2. During the investigation P.S. City Kotwali Raigarh obtained the CCTV Footage and on the basis of CCTV footage identified one Kishan Sharma/co-accused and on the basis of his memorandum arrested the present petitioner/accused on 20.01.2025 and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet on 25.03.2025 for the offences punishable U/s 103 (1), 238; 61 (2), 331 (8) and 3 (5) of B.N.S., the copy of the final report dated 25.03.2025 is being annexed herewith as per Annexure P- 3. At the time of filing of charge sheet, the electronic records like pen drive, CCTV footage and CD have not been supplied to the petitioner/accused along with the charge sheet, therefore the petitioner/accused made an application U/s 230/231 of BNSS for supply of electronic records on 13.05.2025, the copy of application is being annexed herewith as per Annexure P-4. The learned Trial Court allowed an application filed by the applicant U/s 230/231 of BNSS vide order dated 19.06.2025 and directed the prosecution to supply the copy of pen drive, CCTV footage and CD to the petitioner/accused and on same day without supply of such records and without hearing the petitioner/accused on the point of charges leveled against him, framed the charges against the petitioner/accused, at that time the petitioner/accused was 4 present through Video Conferencing and the copy of charge was sent to the jail for obtaining their signature in the charge, the copy of charge framed against the petitioner/accused is being annexed herewith as per Annexure P-5. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner/accused without giving the proper opportunity of hearing and supply of records which are the part of charge sheet, therefore on 20.06.2025, the petitioner/accused made an application for providing one opportunity on the framing of charge after supply of the electronic records, the copy of application is being annexed herewith as per Annexure P-6. The respondent No. 01/prosecution filed the reply of the application and denied the averments of the application made by the petitioner/accused on 20.06.2025 and also denied that the case of the prosecution is completely bases on the electronic records, the copy of reply filed by the prosecution is being annexed herewith as per Annexure P-7. During the pendency of above mentioned application the respondent No. 01/prosecution supplied the electronic records to That the learned Trial Court has rejected an application dated 20.06.2025 filed by the petitioner holding that the charges have been framed after considering the documents, memorandum of the accused, and other evidences, without giving the proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also without giving the opportunity to defend himself on the point of charges leveled against the petitioner/accused ignoring that till date of framing of charges the 5 complete record along with the charge sheet had not, been supplied to the petitioner/accused. That it is settled principle of law that the sufficient opportunity be given to the accused persons at the time of framing of charge against him. That from bare perusal of entire records and order sheet of the Trial Court it is reflected that the complete records was not provided to the petitioner/accused on the date of framing of charge and it is also evident from the records that without giving the proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/accused the charges have been framed against him, therefore the' order of framing of charge against the. petitioner is clear violation of principle of natural justice and the application filed by the petitioner/accused for providing one opportunity of hearing on the point of charge after supply of electronic records was liable to be allowed but the same has been rejected by the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 06.11.2025 which is illegal, improper and contrary to the law. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh C.G. in Sessions Trial No. 45/2025 is completely illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law and hence is liable to be set-aside. He further submits that the learned court vide order dated 19.06.2025 prima facie found that the electronic records have not been supplied to the petitioner/accused along with charge sheet and passed the order of supply of the same and 6 on very same day without giving the proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/accused framed the charges against him which is illegal, improper and contrary to the law. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. From the material available on record, it is revealed that on the basis of information received, an offence was registered at Police Station Kotwali as Crime No. 24/2025 under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, in relation to the brutal murder of Sitaram Jaiswal and Arpurna Jaiswal at their house situated in the market area. During the course of investigation, CCTV footage collected from the vicinity of the place of occurrence showed two persons travelling on a motorcycle. Upon identification, the present applicant/accused Atul Dansena along with co-accused Kishan Sharma and Divya Sarathi were identified. 7. The investigation further disclosed that a few days prior to the incident, Ashok Jaiswal had sold land for an amount of 70 lakhs, ₹ and the accused persons believed that the said amount was kept at the house of Sitaram Jaiswal. Acting with common intention, the applicant/accused, along with co-accused, allegedly hatched a conspiracy to commit theft and, in furtherance thereof, trespassed into the house of the deceased. It is alleged that both the deceased were assaulted with an iron rod, causing grievous injuries resulting in their death. Thereafter, the accused persons fled the scene on a motorcycle. 7 8. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant/accused and co-accused for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2), 331(8), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 9. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the learned trial court considered the charge-sheet, the documents filed along with it, the memorandum statements of the accused, seizure memos, and other material collected during investigation. Upon such consideration, the learned trial court recorded a finding that there exists sufficient prima facie material to presume that the accused persons have committed the aforesaid offences and that charges deserve to be framed against them. 10. The learned trial court has also taken note of the fact that copies of the charge-sheet and all relevant documents were supplied to the accused well in advance. Further, electronic evidence including CCTV footage, pen drive, and CD has also been made available to the accused, thereby affording them a fair opportunity to prepare their defence. 11. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out and whether there is sufficient ground to presume that the accused has committed the offence. A detailed appreciation of evidence or determination of its probative value is neither required nor permissible at this stage. 12. The contention raised on behalf of the applicant/accused that the 8 charges ought not to have been framed relates to appreciation of evidence and defence pleas, which can be adjudicated only during the course of trial. 13. This Court finds that the learned Sessions Court has passed a reasoned and well-considered order after proper application of mind to the material on record. No illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error is apparent in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 14. It is made clear that the prima facie case does not mean conviction or acquittal of the accused. Prima facie case means there is a material against the accused to proceed further in the course of law. 15. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima