HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5486 of 2025 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Krishna Kumar and Sri Namit Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the CBI are present. 2. The instant revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 10.4.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, CBI, Ghaziabad in Special Case No. 03 of 2022 arising out of FIR No. RC120-B2022A0003 of 2022 under sections 120-B, 420, 511 IPC & Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police station CBI, ACB, Ghaziabad in Application u/s 239 Cr.P.C. and discharge the revisionist from the aforesaid criminal case. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that instant revision has been filed by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 10.4.2025 by which his discharge application has been dismissed. 4. He further submitted that from the impugned order dated 10.4.2025 it reflects that learned trial court dismissed the discharge application of the revisionist only after considering the fact that charge sheet has been filed against him alongwith co-accused Harvir Singh and therefore, prima facie, alleged offences are made out against him and it reflects, trial court without application of mind in mechanical manner passed the impugned order. 5. He further submitted that even as far as merit of the present case is concerned, complainant i.e. opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint against co-accused Harvir Singh in 2022 with allegation that in 2020 when he was a prospective candidate for the post of Sub Inspector of Central Arms Police Force then to clear his medical examination he made demand of bribe from him and there is no allegation that revisionist made any demand of bribe from the complainant. 6. He further submitted that from the charge sheet filed by CBI which has been filed alongwith the affidavit filed in support to the instant revision, it reflects that only allegation against the revisionist is that he had number of conversations with co- Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Krishna Kumar, Namit Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rahul Srivastava Ram Kumar Verma .....Revisionist(s) Central Bureau Of Investigation .....Opposite Party(s) accused Harvir Singh and as per CBI he also committed the alleged offences alongwith co-accused Harvir Singh who was principal accused and therefore, it appears with the aid of section 120 B IPC revisionist has been roped in the present matter but even there is no admissible and cogent evidence of conspiracy against the revisionist. 7. He further submitted that without considering the evidence available on record trial court in cryptic manner dismissed discharge application of the revisionist. 8. He next submits, therefore, impugned order dated 10.4.2025 is illegal and is liable to be set aside. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for CBI, submits, there is no illegality in the impugned order and it reflects, while passing the impugned order, trial court applied its mind and after perusing the material on record, discharge application of revisionist has been dismissed. 10. He further submits, after detailed investigation charge sheet has been filed against the revisionist and at this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie, alleged offences are not made out against the revisionist. 11. He further submits, therefore, instant revision is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. From the record of the case it reflects charge sheet has been filed against the revisionist and co-accused Harvir Singh for offences punishable under sections 120B, 420, 511 IPC r/w section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act and when revisionist filed discharge application by stating that no offence is made out against him and without any admissible and cogent evidence CBI submitted charges sheet against him then by way of impugned order dated 10.4.2025 learned trial court dismissed his discharge application. 14. The law with regard to the discharge of an accused is settled. The Apex Court in case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf (2023) 7 SCC 633 in paragraph no. 11 observed that:- "11. The law on issue as to what is to be considered at the time of discharge of an accused is well settled. It is a case in which the Trial Court had not yet framed the charges. Immediately after filing of charge sheet, application for discharge was filed. The settled proposition of law is that at the stage of hearing on the charges entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed. In case no offence is made out then only an accused can be discharged. Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the stage of trial. At the stage of charge, the Court has to satisfy that a prima facie case is made out against the accused CRLR No. 5486 of 2025 2 persons. Interference of the Court at that stage is required only if there is strong reasons to hold that in case the ? Criminal Appeal No. 1399 of 2023 trial is allowed to proceed, the same would amount to abuse of process of the Court." 15. Therefore, from the observation made by Apex Court it reflects, if from the material placed before the Court no offence is made out then an accused can be discharged. Therefore, before passing an order on the discharge application it is obligatory to the trial court to analyse whether from the material placed, prima facie, alleged offences are made out or not. Trial court merely by observing that investigating agency has filed charge sheet and therefore, material is sufficient for charges can not dismissed the discharge application. Further, from the order passed on discharge application it must be reflected that trial court applied its mind on the material placed before it. 16. From the impugned order it reflects that after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, learned trial court observed that in the instant matter CBI has submitted chargesheet against the revisionist and co-accused Harvir Singh and as per the CBI both the accused persons under conspiracy made demand of bribe from the complainant and during preliminary inquiry conducted by CBI, the case was registered and thereafter trial court noted the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (supra) and thereafter in para-12 observed that thus, from the above discussion and material available on record against the revisionist and co-accused Harvir Singh grounds are sufficient to frame charges against them. 17. Therefore, it reflects that court concerned did not apply its independent judicial mind whether from the material placed before it, prima facie, alleged offences are made out against the revisionist or not and it appears merely as CBI submitted charge sheet and CBI made allegation against the revisionist, therefore, trial court formed an opinion that grounds are sufficient for framing charges. Thus, trial court committed an illegality. It was the duty of the trial court to independently applied its mind on the material placed before it whether, prima facie, alleged offences are made out or not. 18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view impugned order dated 10.4.2025 passed by the trial court is illegal and is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 19. Accordingly the instant revision stands allowed. 20. The matter is remitted back to the trial court to decide the discharge application of the revisionist 'afresh' in accordance with law, at the earliest, in the light of the order passed by this Court. September 16, 2025 Ankita CRLR No. 5486 of 2025 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad