HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4945 of 2025 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Bhawesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for revisionist and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the order dated 26.05.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Special Court No.2 (Prevention of Corruption Act), Meerut in Criminal Case No. 111 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 147 of 2019, under Sections 35, 37, 119, 166 IPC, Section 42 The Prison Act and Section 7A, 8(1), 12 P.C. Act, Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for revisionist submits, by way of instant revision revisionist challenged the order dated 26.05.2025 by which, trial court dismissed his discharge application. 4. He further submits, however, revisionist was named in the FIR and he was a Jail Constable but from perusal of the FIR and other material available on record prima facie no offences under Sections 35, 37, 119, 166 IPC, Sections 7A, 8(1), 12 P.C. Act and Section 42 Prisons Act are made out against the revisionist. 5. He further submits, as per prosecution, when co-accused Ankit Chaudhary was arrested by the police and from his possession one stolen motorcycle was recovered then he disclosed the name of applicant by stating that he is Pairokar of Gangster Anil Dujana and revisionist by illegal means helped them. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Bhawesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Arvind Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6. He next submits, however, as per prosecution, apart from the statements of co-accused and confessional statement of revisionist there is also evidence that some Whatsapp chats were also found in the mobile phone of co- accused Ankit Chaudhary which suggests that revisionist and co-accused constable Shyam were connected with him and with other accused and they were making chat to receive huge amount from them but on the basis of said evidence, it cannot be said that applicant committed the alleged offences as alleged evidences were not admissible in the eye of law. 7. 7. He next submits, even no certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act has been obtained by the Investigating Officer and it appears, merely on the basis of statements of co-accused and revisionist before the police, charge-sheet has been submitted against revisionist. 8. He next submits, while rejecting the discharge application of the revisionist, court concerned did not consider the above aspects of the case and thus committed gross illegality and therefore impugned order dated 26.05.2025 is illegal and liable to be set aside. 9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that law is settled that even on the basis of strong suspicion charges can be framed and from perusal of evidence available on record it cannot be said that there is not even any strong suspicion against revisionist. 10. Learned AGA further submits, from the Whatsapp chat of the revisionist and other accused it is apparent that being public servant i.e. Jail Constable revisionist through illegal means provided help to the gangster and in lieu thereof he received huge amount of money too and whether the allegations are correct or not it can only be decided by the trial court during trial and therefore, by rejecting the discharge application of the revisionist, trial court did not commit any illegality. 11. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. The instant revision has been filed by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 26.05.2025 by which, his discharge application has been dismissed by the court concerned. 13. From the record it reflects, applicant was Jail Constable and as per prosecution, when accused Ankit Chaudhary was arrested along with stolen motorcycle then he disclosed the name of applicant and other accused CRLR No. 4945 of 2025 2 Shyam by stating that he was Pairokar of gangster Anil Dujana and revisionist being Jail Constable provided help to him illegally and it was also found that number of times accused Ankit Chaudhary and other accused were having Whatsapp chat with the revisionist and from the Whatsapp chat it also reflects, revisionist and co-accused Shyam were also asking for Rs. 10 lakhs. 10 lakhs. Further, from the charge-sheet it also reflects, during investigation Investigating Officer through the CDR of revisionist and other accused also collected evidence that revisionist was well connected with them, therefore, prima facie from the evidence available on record it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the revisionist. 14. Further, however, it reflects, along with charge-sheet certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act has not been filed by the Investigating Officer but in view of this Court merely on this ground revisionist could not be discharged. 15. Further, law with regard to discharge is settled, if from the evidence collected during investigation prima facie alleged offences are made out then an accused cannot be discharged and whether evidence/allegations are correct or not it can only be decided by the trial court during trial. Further, law is also settled that even if there is strong suspicion against the accused then also charges against him should be framed. 16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, while rejecting the discharge application of the revisionist trial court did not commit any illegality. 17. Accordingly, the instant revision is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. September 1, 2025 AK Pandey CRLR No. 4945 of 2025 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad