HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15388 of 2026 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA appearing for the State. 2. This application has been filed for seeking quashing of order dated 13.11.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi in S.T. No.276 of 2024 (State Vs. Zeeshan and others), arising out of Case Crime No.259 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 325, 308 IPC, P.S. Nakhasa, District Sambhal, whereby discharge application preferred at the behest of applicants, was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case since no offence as alleged has ever been committed by them. Learned counsel for applicants further submitted that all the injuries were simple in nature and more so, the alleged injury which was shown as grievous in nature, was made by way of collusion with the concerned Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for applicants further argued that there are several contradictions in the statements recorded during course of investigation, but without considering the said facts, discharge application preferred at the behest of applicants, has been rejected illegally against the weight of evidence by learned court concerned vide impugned order and as such, the same may be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the instant application and supported the order impugned. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 also submitted that the contentions, which are sought to be raised on behalf of applicants, would relate to disputed Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Safiullah Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sunil Kumar Dubey, G.A. Mohd Zeeshan @ Zeeshan And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) questions of fact, and would involve appreciation of evidence. It is submitted that at the stage of consideration of discharge, only a prima facie case is to be seen and the court concerned is not expected to hold a mini trial. 5. The ambit and scope of exercise of powers while passing an order of discharge, was subject matter of consideration in Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal And Another [(1979) 3 SCC 4], and it was held that the Court while exercising such powers is not to act as a trial judge but should weigh evidence and form opinion only on the limited question of whether a prima facie case is made out. 6. From perusal of the material available on record as well as order impugned along with injury report which shows grievous injury, it is evident that learned court concerned after considering each and every aspect of the matter i.e. allegations made in the FIR, statements recorded during course of investigation, injury reports and nature of injuries, has rightly rejected the application for discharge by holding that prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, it cannot be said that learned court concerned has acted without application of mind, the reasoning given by learned court concerned, is just and proper. 7. Accordingly, the prayer sought through the instant application, is refused. 8. Lastly, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that liberty may be granted to applicants to surrender before the court concerned and apply for bail to which learned AGA has no objection. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the instant application is finally disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that in case, the applicants surrender before the court concerned within a period of 15 days from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825). 10. However, it is made clear that till 15 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants herein in pursuance of aforesaid case. May 7, 2026 Vivek Kr. NA528 No. 15388 of 2026 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad