1 CGHC010365462026 2026:CGHC:40720 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2443 of 2026 1. Kali Prasad Mishra S/o Durga Prasad Mishra Aged About 40 Years R/o- H. No. 11, Arya Bhoomi Housing Society, Near St. Xaviers International School, Patia, P.S. Chandrasekharpur, District- Khordha, Bhubaneswar, Odisha ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. VR Tiwari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Atul Kesharwani and Mr. Shubham Dwivedi, Advocates For Respondent : Mr. Avinash Singh, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 17/09/2026 1. With the consent of the parties, this matter is heard finally. 2. This petition is filed by petitioner against the order date 8.8.2026 passed in Case No.35/2022 by which learned Sessions Judge, Balod has directed for personal appearance of the petitioner while hearing of arguments before charge and hearing on application submitted by petitioner under SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakasha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’). 3. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submits that trial Court erred in fixing simultaneous date of hearing for arguments before charge and arguments on application filed under Section 250 of BNSS. When application is filed under Section 250 of BNSS, which talks of discharge, then it was for the trial Court to first consider and decide that application with prayer for discharge and thereafter to proceed according to provision under Section 251 of the BNSS, if needed. The procedure adopted by the trial Court is erroneous and therefore, the order impugned directing appearance of petitioner during hearing on the application under Section 250 of BNSS be set aside. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that presence of petitioner is necessary as the Court has fixed the case for arguments before framing of charge and as such, there is no error in the order subject matter of challenge in this petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 6. From perusal of impugned order it is apparent that application filed under Section 250 of BNSS by the petitioner is pending 3 consideration before trial Court. Section 250 of BNSS envisages as under:- “250.Discharge.- (1) the accused may prefer an application for discharge within a period of sixty days from the date of commitment of the case under section 232. (2) If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.” 7. Bare perusal of above extracted provision makes it clear that it deals with the filing of application by accused for discharge. There is no mention in the above quoted provision that it requires appearance of accused at the time of hearing of application under Section 250 of BNSS. Section 251 of BNSS talks of framing of charge and sub-section (2) of Section 251 provides that where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused present either physically or through audio-video electronic means and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried. 8. From the order impugned it is appearing that the trial Court has fixed the case for arguments on application under Section 4 250 of BNSS also, therefore, it is for the trial Court to first consider and decide the application filed by petitioner under Section 250 of BNSS for discharge and thereafter to proceed further in accordance with law according to provision under Section 251 of BNSS. Both the proceedings, one under Section 250 of BNSS and another under Section 251 of BNSS are to be drawn independently and separately. If application under Section 250 of BNSS would be allowed then there will be no requirement of proceedings under Section 251 of BNSS. It is also observed that for the purpose of hearing application under Section 250 of the BNSS appearance of the petitioner is not necessary. 9. For the forgoing discussion, it is ordered that so far as the direction issued in impugned order for presence of the petitioner on the date fixed is set aside. It is made clear that this is only with respect to hearing on application under Section 250 of BNSS, and further that the learned trial Court shall decide the application under Section 250 of BNSS and thereafter to proceed under Section 251 of BNSS, if further required. 10. The impugned order stands modified accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-