Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010055172026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./418/2026 KANGKAN PATGIRI S/O KULADHAR PATGIRI R/O HATHINAPUR, PATHSALA GAON, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781325 PRESENTLY SERVING AS HOME GUARD UNDER DISPUR P.S., GUWAHATI. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N RAY, N N HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 30.07.2026 Heard Ms. N. N. Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. H. Borah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 read with Page No.# 2/4 Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the Charge Sheet, being Charge Sheet No. 83, dated 30.11.2024, arising out of Pathsala P.S. Case No. 15/2024, registered under Sections 120(B)/409/468/471, IPC. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 03.02.2026 passed by the learned Court of JMFC, Bajali, rejecting the discharge petition filed under Section 262 of the BNSS, 2023. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, an FIR was lodged on 08.02.2024, by the Police Reserve, Bajali, stating inter alia that 63 Command Certificates of Home Guard Volunteers were received at the Police Reserve Office, Bajali and on suspicion that the same were doubtful, a verification was conducted by the Commandant Home Guards Urban Wing, Barpeta and in the said verification it was found that out of the said 63 Command Certificates, only 16 Command Certificates were genuine. 4. On the basis that, there are persons involved in sending the invalid Command Certificates, the said FIR was registered and then investigation was conducted. On completion of investigation, a Charge Sheet was submitted arraying petitioners and others as accused persons. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that, in the Charge Sheet, no materials were stated against the petitioner for having done illegality in the said case. She submits that the name of the petitioner is simply included as accused person in the said Charge Sheet. She further submits that the petitioner has filed an application for discharge before the learned Court of JMFC, Bajali, and the said Court had rejected the said application only on the basis that the co-accused of the instant case has implicated the name of the petitioner. She submits that the co-accused statement being a weak piece of evidence cannot be the sole basis for refusing the discharge application and for Page No.# 3/4 holding that the petitioner is liable for any offence. 6. Ms. S. H. Borah, the learned APP for the State, submits that, it is only the stage of framing of charge and it is provided under Section 262 of the BNSS that upon considering the Police report and the documents sent with it and after hearing of the accused and the prosecution, if the Magistrate thinks necessary that the charge against the accused person is groundless, he shall discharge the accused. She submits that there is material on record in the form of the statement of the co-accused and as such, the discharge application was correctly rejected by the said Court. 7. I have heard the counsels and I have gone through the records. Although in the FIR, none of the accused persons were named much less the petitioner, during the investigation, the name of the petitioner surfaced, in view of the statement given by the co-accused, i.e. Sailendra Nath Das. It is stated that during the investigation, the statements of various witnesses were recorded and that on 12.02.2024, one Sailendra Nath Das, was arrested from his residence and along with him there were other individuals who were interrogated by the Police Officer. 8. It is further stated that during interrogation of said Sailendra Nath Das, it was revealed on the confession made by the said person that command certificates for appointment of Home Guards were issued and money was taken from each and every applicant. It was further stated that said Sailendra Nath Das had revealed that the petitioner and another were also involved in the said activity. 9. On the basis of the said statements, it is stated that Charge Sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and others. It is not the case that there is Page No.# 4/4 no material against the petitioner at all in the instant case in as much as, there is a statement against him by the co-accused. Although, it is a settled position of Law, that the statement of the co-accused is a weak piece of evidence but the same is required to be considered during the trial. As far as, submission of Charge Sheet or framing of charge is concerned, the same has to be considered by the Court. 10. Under Section 263 of the BNSS, 2023, it is provided that, if upon consideration of the Police Report as well as the documents sent under Section 193 of the BNSS and after hearing the accused person and the prosecution the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence a charge in writing shall be framed against him within the time frame. The requirement under the said Section is the ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence. The presumption in the instant case comes from the co-accused statement and as such, the submission of Charge Sheet and the rejection of the discharge application is considered to be correct by this Court at this stage. 11. In view of the same, the Criminal Petition is dismissed and disposed of. 12. However, the observations made in this order will not have any effect on the trial of the case or on any order passed by the concerned Court. JUDGE Comparing Assistant