66.26revn (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 15 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 66 OF 2026 AJIT LAKHMICHAND BOTHRA VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RATAN SUMANT GAIKWAD ….. Mr P. R. Katneshwarkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr Anuj Fulfagar Advocate for Applicant Mr S. G. Sangle, APP for Respondent No.1 Mr Harshvardhan A. Karad, Advocate h/f Mr A. V. Hon, Advocate for respondent No.2 ….. CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2026 P. C. : 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr Katneshwarkar for the applicant, learned APP Mr Sangle for respondent No.1/State and learned Advocate Mr Karad holding for Advocate Mr Hon for respondent No.2. 2. The applicant is challenging the impugned order dated 09/01/2026, passed below Exhibit 4 in Sessions Case No.225/2022 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, wherein the application filed by him under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge came to be rejected. 2026:BHC-AUG:38640 66.26revn (2) 3. According to the prosecution, on 12/11/2017, in between 5.00 to 5.30 p.m., when the informant/Ratan Gaikwad was going in his Auto Rickshaw from Professor Colony to Premdan Chowk, he saw one Akash Auti alongwith other unknown men and women. He, therefore, called his family members there. At that time 4-5 persons came there. Said Akash Auti assaulted the informant with hands and another person also assaulted him with blows of kicks and fists. Thereafter, informant went to some unknown persons and told them that the dispute took place on account of plot owned by them. The accused persons assaulted the informant with stone and blows of kicks and fists. 3They also assaulted his wife, namely, Rajashri, sister Savita Dilip Padale and niece Shubham Sharad Gaikwad. They also threatened them to kill. One of the accused disclosed the informant that present applicant/accused Bothara sent them to beat and give threat to them. Therefore, informant lodged report to the Police Station, Tophkhana bearing FIR No.I-473/2017. The accused persons came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323, 143, 147, 149, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. There were almost 8 accused persons. Present applicant is applicant No.8 against whom the allegations are that he had sent the aforesaid accused persons at the spot to commit crime. After 66.26revn (3) registering offence, the Investigating Officer completed investigation and filed charge-sheet against all the accused persons for offence punishable under aforesaid Sections. 5. After filing of charge-sheet, the applicant had preferred the application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his discharge, which came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 09/01/2022. Being aggrieved of the said order, the applicant has filed this revision application. 6. Mr Katneshwarkar, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment is illegal, perverse and shows non application of mind. According to him, the applicant has not committed any crime and he has been falsely implicated in this crime. He submits that, the applicant at all cannot be said to be involved in this crime as he was not present on the spot, where the incident took place. He further submits that there was civil dispute on account of immovable property between applicant and informant, and therefore, the applicant has been falsely implicated. He further states that contents of FIR do not show that applicant is related to other accused persons, and thus, he is not part of the alleged incident. According to him, there are no allegations against the applicant, and 66.26revn (4) there is no incriminating material against him, and as such, the applicant cannot be made to suffer from the agony of trial. He then submits that in one paragraph of 5-6 lines, the learned Sessions Judge decided the application for discharge. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside and therefore, he prays for allowing the present revision application. 7. Learned Senior Advocate, in support of his submissions, relies upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, (1979) 3 Supreme Court Cases 4. 8. Per contra, learned APP Mr Sangle and learned Advocate Mr Karad for the complainant strongly opposed the application. They submit that there is sufficient material against the applicant/accused in the charge-sheet and the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge is correct, proper and requires no interference of this Court. They, therefore, prays for dismissal of the instant revision application. 9. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective sides, I have gone through the record available with the Court. Perusal of the contents of the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge shows that, in one 66.26revn (5) paragraph of 5-6 lines, the application for discharge came to be decided. Learned Sessions Judge observed in the said order that the charge-sheet against the applicant/accused discloses committal of the offence under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code with other sections. By observing by the learned Session Judge that, role of the accused cannot be segregated and mere submission that the presence of applicant is not found as per the FIR, is not sufficient to discharge the applicant, the application for discharge came to be dismissed. In my opinion, learned Sessions Judge failed to give proper reasoning for rejecting such application. 10. The learned Senior Advocate rightly relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India (supra), in paragraph No.10 of which, it is observed thus :- “10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge : (i) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully 66.26revn (6) justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (iii) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (iv) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.” 11. In pursuance of above said guidelines, it appears that learned Sessions Court decided the application for discharge in a mechanical manner. Hence, this matter is required to be sent back to decided afresh to the learned Sessions Judge. 12. In view of above, this matter is remitted back to the learned Sessions Court for deciding afresh. The parties are directed to 66.26revn (7) appear and argue the matter before the learned Sessions Court on 07/09/2026. Learned Sessions Court to decide the application afresh. 13. This revision application is disposed of in above terms. 14. This Court vide order dated 24/03/2026, has granted interim relief, thereby staying the proceedings against the present applicant. The said order be continued till the disposal of the application by the learned Sessions Court. [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.] sjk