Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010143022026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1006/2026 GOPAL BASAK SON OF LATE PHANINDRA CH. BASRESIDENT OF HOWLY TOWN, WARD NO. 1, P.O. AND P.S. HOWLY, DISTRICT BARPETA, ASSAMAK, VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:UBC-441 APUL GOGOI S/O JUTIL GOGOIVILL- HALUWA P.S. CHARAIPUNG DIST. CHARAIDEO ASSAM PIN-78569 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MR H A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 23.09.2026 Heard Mr. R Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/4 2. By this application filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the charge sheet submitted in pursuant to the FIR dated 29.11.2024 which was registered as Mushalpur PS Case No. 127/2024 registered under Section 317(2)/3(5) of BNS, 2023. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the learned CJM, Baksa, Mushalpur in PRC Case No. 225/2025 by which charge was framed against the petitioner under Section 317(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. The case of the petitioner is that on 29.11.2024, an FIR was lodged by one police personnel of Mushalpur Police Station stating inter alia that while doing a naka checking, the informant noticed one motorcycle being driven by one of the accused person and that the persons, who were in the motor cycle were without wearing the helmet as is required. The informant further stated that they stopped the motorcycle and issued an E-Challan for collecting the fine amount which is imposed upon the accused person for not wearing the helmet. It is also stated in the FIR that an FIR was already lodged on 17.12.2020 against the same accused persons for the same offence. Pursuant to the said FIR, the accused persons were arrested and the motor cycle was also seized. 4. On receipt of the FIR , the police investigated the same and on completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was laid on 22.04.2025 and in the said charge sheet, it was stipulated that the owner of the said motor cycle was identified and the police went to his house and inquired about the bike and came to know that one Mr. Babul Boro had purchased the bike from a second hand dealer, which is owned by the petitioner and on interrogation of the petitioner, it was known that the petitioner bought the bike from another person. The said petitioner was thereafter implicated in the offence and the charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner. Page No.# 3/4 5. Thereafter, the said charge sheet was placed before the concerned Court and cognizance was taken for the offence against the accused person under Section 317(2) of the BNS by order dated 16.05.2025. Thereafter, the Court of CJM, Baksa, Mushalpur heard the parties on the point of framing of charge and framed the charge against the accused person namely Gopal Basak and the same was read over to him and explained to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Section 227 of the CrPC, which is now Section 250 of the BNSS, 2023, provides that the Court upon consideration of the record of the case and document submitted therewith and after hearing the submission of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf does not find that there is any sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused person shall discharge the accused and record his reason for so doing. However, if the Court finds upon such consideration and hearing that there is ground for presuming that the accused person has committed an offence will frame charge under Section 228 of the Cr.PC, which is now Section 251 of the BNSS, 2023. 6. It is a settled position of law that Court at a time of framing charge is required to discuss materials on record to show its application of mind to reach to the conclusion of sufficiency of material to frame charge. The Court may not write lengthy order describing entire material mentioned in the charge sheet but there must be something on the face of the order from where it can be gauged that there is an application of mind. The Supreme Court in P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala Reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398 had held as follows: "In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal this Court after considering the scope of Section 227 observed that the words `no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused' clearly show that the Judge is not merely a post office to frame charge at the behest of the prosecution but he has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the Page No.# 4/4 case in order to determine that a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities but he may evaluate the material to find out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value establish the ingredients constituting the said offence" 7. In the present case, it is seen that the Court of CJM, Baksa, Mushalpur while framing charge against the petitioner had not stipulated any averment showing application of mind for such doing so as to show that he was of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence. 8. Further the counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be allowed to file his discharge application and thereafter the concerned Court to consider the framing of charge afresh. 9. As such, this Court gives liberty to the petitioner to file an application for discharge and the said application be considered by the said Court who shall pass final order as per law. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 15.09.2025 is set aside and quashed and the case is remanded back to the said Court of CJM, Baksa, Mushalpur to consider the case afresh. 11. The petition is as such disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant