HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2895 of 2026 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 10.04.2026 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act, Bhadohi-Gyanpur in Sessions Trial No.78 of 2026 (State vs. Haris and others) arising out of Case Crime No.140 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 317(4), 3(5) of B.N.S., Police Station Bhadohi, District Bhadohi and to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that he was not arrested by the police on the spot in the alleged incident but on the basis of statement made by other co-accused persons namely Atiq Ahmad the present revisionist was also involved in the case for making fire on the police personnel. Further submitted that no any recovery was made from the possession of the present revisionist even though the learned trial court has rejected the application for discharge against the present revisionist for the offences u/s 109(1), 317(4), 3/5 B.N.S. and Section 3/25 Arms Act. He also submitted that he was not involved in the incident but only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused persons his involvement in the present case cannot be said to be established and he cannot be prosecuted for the aforesaid offences. Learned trial court has not considered all these facts while deciding the application for discharge u/s 250 B.N.S.S., therefore, the order dated 10.04.2026 passed by learned trial court is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Archit Mandhyan, Mantosh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Arsh Ali .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that there were two motorcycles on which the culprits were riding and made fire on the police party. Three persons on one motorcycle were arrested by the police and two others ran away form the spot whose names were disclosed by the arrested accused persons. Since, there was no any recovery from the possession of the present revisionist that was the reason no charge sheet u/s 3/25 Arms Act was filed against the present revisionist. The learned trial court has considered all these facts while passing the order in question and at the stage of framing of charge, the appreciation of material collected during the course of investigation by the police is not expected to be done as during the course of trial but it is only with a view to find out prima facie case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the contents of F.I.R., the recovery memo, the statements of witnesses and the order dated10.04.2026 passed by learned trial court, it transpires that as per the allegation in F.I.R. the revisionist was also involved with other accused persons in making fire on the police personnel though no any injury was caused to them but he ran away from the spot and his name was disclosed by the other co-accused persons those were arrested by the police. Since, there was no any recovery of arms or ammunition from the possession of the present revisionist that was the reason charge sheet was not filed against him u/s 3/25 Arms Act. Learned court concerned has taken into consideration the material collected during the course of investigation and then passed the order in question. At the stage of discharge, the court is to appreciate the material on record only with a view to find out prima facie case against the accused persons and even on grave suspicion charge can be framed. At this stage, the scrutiny of material is not to be made as is required during trial. In this way, there appears no any illegality and impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court dated 10.04.2026 but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself. May 12, 2026 Ashok Gupta CRLR No. 2895 of 2026 2 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad