KARTIKBHAI JASHUBHAI PATEL vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.RA/2627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER
PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 2627 of 2025
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 49 of 2026
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 133 of 2026
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 2626 of 2025
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 226 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
================================================
KARTIKBHAI JASHUBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================
Appearance:
MR JM PANCHAL, SR ADVOCATE with MR AJJ H
MURJANI(13356) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK DAVE, PP with MR ROHAL RAVAL, APP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================
Page 1 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:28:00 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/2627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 05/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant in Criminal
Revision Application No. 226 of 2025 has tendered a draft
amendment. The same is allowed in terms of the draft.
Amendment shall be carried out forthwith.
2. Rule , returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent–
State.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
3. The present group of revision applications arises from a
th
common order passed by the learned 6 Additional Sessions
Judge, Ahmedabad, whereby the applications preferred by the
present applicants seeking (i) condonation of delay in filing
discharge applications under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and (ii) discharge from the
offences alleged, came to be rejected.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicants —
Directors, Non-Executive Director, Chief Executive Officer and
medical practitioners associated with Khyati Hospital,
Page 2 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:28:00 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/2627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026
Ahmedabad — in alleged connivance with one another, entered
into a criminal conspiracy to derive pecuniary advantage under
the Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY). It is alleged that
patients were induced to undergo angiography and angioplasty
procedures, including implantation of stents, without medical
necessity; that misleading or false medical records were prepared
to generate fear and obtain consent; and that two patients died as a
consequence thereof.
5. On the basis of these allegations, FIR being C.R. No.
11191020240478 of 2024 dated 13.11.2024 came to be registered
with Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for offences
punishable under Sections 105, 110, 336(2), 336(3), 340(1), 340(2),
318 and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Upon
completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the case,
being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, was committed
under Section 232 of the BNSS.
6. The applicants thereafter preferred applications seeking
discharge under Section 250 of the BNSS. In certain matters, as the
discharge applications were filed beyond the prescribed period of
sixty days from the date of committal, separate applications, as
detailed below, for condonation of delay were also filed. The
learned Sessions Judge rejected the delay condonation applications
and consequently, declined to entertain the discharge applications.
Aggrieved thereby, the present revisions are preferred as detailed
Page 3 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:28:00 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/2627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026
below:
CR.R
A No.
Sess
ions
Applicant
Impugned
Passe
Passed by Applicati
Committ
Dischar
Name &
Order
d
below
on for
al
proceedi
ge
Applicat
ion filed
Cas
Status
dated
e
No.
Exh.
ngs
complet
on
( as per
impugne
ed on
( as per
impugne
d order )
d order )
th
Ld. 6
2627/
128/
2025
Kartikbhai
20.12.2025 91 &
Delay
Condonati
09.06.202
07.11.202
2025
Jashubhai
92
Addl.
Sessions
5
5
Patel
(Director)
on and to
Discharge
Judge,
Ahmedab
ad.
49/
2026
31/
2025
Sanjaybhai
12.12.2025 80 -do- Discharge 13.02.202
29.08.202
Muljibhai
5
5
Patoliya
(Doctor)
133/
2026
31/
2025
Rahul
Rajendraku
19.12.2025 76 -do- Discharge 13.02.202
14.08.202
5
5
mar Jain
(CEO)
226/
2026
31/
2025
Rajeshree
12.12.2025 77 -do- Discharge 13.02.202
29.08.202
Pradeep
5
5
Kothari
(Non-
executive
Woman
Director))
2626/
128/
2025
Kartikbhai
20.12.2025 91 &
-do- Delay
Condonati
09.06.202
07.11.202
2025
Jashubhai
92
5
5
Patel
(Director)
on and to
Discharge
SUBMISSIONS:
7. Heard, learned Senior Counsel Mr. J. M. Panchal, appearing
with Mr. Ajj H. Murjani, learned advocate for the applicant in
Criminal Revision Application Nos. 2627 and 2626 of 2025, learned
Senior Counsel Mr. N. D. Nanavati, appearing with Mr.
Page 4 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:28:00 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/2627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026
Jigneshkumar P. Pandav, learned advocate for the applicant in
Criminal Revision Application No. 133 of 2026, learned Senior
Counsel Mr. Mihir Joshi, appearing with Mr. Rahul Dholakia,
learned advocate for the applicant in Criminal Revision
Application No. 49 of 2026, learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah for
the applicant in Criminal Revision Application No. 226 of 2026 and
learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Dave, appearing with Mr.
Rohan Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
respondent – State.
ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS:
(A) On limitation and right to seek discharge :
8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants have
assailed the impugned orders contending that the learned Sessions
Judge adopted a hyper-technical approach in rejecting the delay
condonation applications and, while doing so, impermissibly
entered into the merits of the prosecution case.
9. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mihir Joshi has advanced the
submission that Section 250(1) of the BNSS confers upon the
accused a right to prefer an application for discharge within sixty
days from the date of committal so as to trigger the prosecution to
open and crystallize its case at the threshold. According to him,
this provision is intended to ensure expeditious trial; however, the
failure to exercise such right within sixty days does not extinguish
Page 5 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:28:00 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/2627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026
the substantive right of the accused to seek discharge. It is
contended that discharge is intrinsically connected with the
guarantee of fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, and
therefore, the statutory period ought not to be construed as
extinguishing the right itself.
9.1 Mr. Joshi would further submit that as per the amended
provisions under sub-clause (2) of Section 250 of the BNSS, the
same is verbatim as was in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
However, it is submitted that sub-clause (1) of Section 250 of the
BNSS provides an additional right to trigger the prosecution at the
very threshold. Thus, it is contended that the right which was
already conferred under the old Code, is also conferred by the
BNSS, however, as an additional right to trigger the prosecution at
the very threshold, under sub-clause (1) of Section 250 of the
BNSS, which confers right upon an accused to prefer an
application for discharge if he is so desirous within 60 days from
the date of committal.
(B) On non-supply of documents and invalid committal :
10. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Nirupam Nanavati has further
submitted that the committal order under Section 232 of the BNSS
is vitiated inasmuch as it was passed without complete compliance
of Section 230. It is pointed out that certain documents, not
forming part of the charge-sheet papers initially supplied, were
furnished by the prosecution at the stage of hearing of the
Page 6 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:28:00 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/2627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026
discharge applications and were relied upon in reply. It is
therefore contended that:
(i) There was non-compliance of Section 230 at the stage
of supply of documents;
(ii) Consequently, the committal under Section 232 is
rendered defective;
(iii) The opening of the case under Section 249 is also
vitiated as the prosecution sought to rely upon materials not
forming part of the original record; and
(iv) Such non-compliance at successive stages has caused
prejudice to the accused, affecting their right to a meaningful
consideration of discharge.
ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:
11. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revisions
contending that Section 250 prescribes a clear limitation period of
sixty days, introduced to expedite criminal trials. It is submitted
that law of limitation is founded upon public policy and cannot be
diluted merely because the accused desires to raise a threshold
challenge.
12. It is further contended that even if certain additional
Page 7 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:28:00 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/2627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026
documents were referred to subsequently, such reference would
not invalidate the committal or render the proceedings void,
unless specific prejudice is demonstrated. Learned PP would also
submit that when legislatures have incorporated statutory period
the accused ought to have preferred discharge application within
said statutory period and therefore argued that by amendment
neither new right is created nor the earlier right of discharge is
extinguished but only time period is provided to exercise right of
discharge if the accused wants to avail such right.
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK :
13. Section 230 of the BNSS mandates supply of police report
and relevant documents to the accused. Section 232 stipulates that
committal to the Court of Sessions shall be effected only after
compliance with Section 230. Section 249 contemplates opening of
the prosecution case. Section 250 enables the accused to prefer a
discharge application within sixty days from the date of
committal. For ready perusal, the same are extracted hereunder:
230. Supply to accused of copy of police report and other
documents. —In any case where the proceeding has been
instituted on a police report , the Magistrate shall without delay,
and in no case beyond fourteen days from the date of production or
appearance of the accused, furnish to the accused and the victim (if
represented by an advocate) free of cost, a copy of each of the
following:-
(i) the police report;
Page 8 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:28:00 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/2627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026
(ii) the first information report recorded under section 173;
(iii) the statements recorded under sub-section (3) of section 180
of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its
witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a
request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under
sub-section (7) of section 193;
(iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under
section 183;
(v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to
the Magistrate with the police report under sub-section (6) of
section 193:
Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such part of
a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and considering the
reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a copy
of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof as the
Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished to the accused:
Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any such
document is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the
accused and the victim (if represented by an advocate) with a copy
thereof, may furnish the copies through electronic means or direct
that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or
through an advocate in Court:
Provided also that supply of documents in electronic form shall be
considered as duly furnished.
232. Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence
is triable exclusively by it. —When in a case instituted on a
police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before
the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is
triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall—
(a) commit, after complying with the provisions of section
230 or section 231 the case to the Court of Session , and subject
Page 9 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:28:00 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/2627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026
to the provisions of this Sanhita relating to bail, remand the
accused to custody until such commitment has been made;
(b) subject to the provisions of this Sanhita relating to bail,
remand the accused to custody during, and until the conclusion of,
the trial;
(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents
and articles, if any, which are to be produced in evidence;
(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to
the Court of Session:
Provided that the proceedings under this section shall be completed
within a period of ninety days from the date of taking cognizance,
and such period may be extended by the Magistrate for a period not
exceeding one hundred and eighty days for the reasons to be
recorded in writing:
Provided further that any application filed before the Magistrate by
the accused or the victim or any person authorised by such person
in a case triable by Court of Session, shall be forwarded to the
Court of Session with the committal of the case.”
249. Opening case for prosecution. —When the accused
appears or is brought before the Court, in pursuance of a
commitment of the case under section 232, or under any other law
for the time being in force, the prosecutor shall open his case by
describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by
what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused.
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
Page 10 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:28:00 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/2627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026
the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons
for so doing.
14. The scheme thus emphasizes informed participation of the
accused at the threshold stage.
LAW ON LIMITATION AND CONDONATION:
15. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji,
(1987) 2 SCC 107 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that substantial
justice should prevail over technical considerations while dealing
with condonation of delay.
16. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 , it
was held that length of delay is not decisive; what matters is
whether sufficient cause is shown and whether the delay is bona
fide .
17. In Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. & Ors. v. The
Special Deputy Collector (LA), AIR 2024 SC (Supp) 1835 , the
Supreme Court reiterated that merits of the case are not to be
examined while deciding condonation and that Courts retain
discretion where sufficient cause is demonstrated.
LAW ON SUPPLY OF DOCUMENTS AND PREJUDICE:
18. The importance of supply of documents to the accused has
been emphasized in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi,
Page 11 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:28:00 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/2627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026
(2005) 1 SCC 568 , wherein the Supreme Court observed that the
right of discharge must be exercised on the basis of the record of
the case and documents submitted therewith, and that the accused
is entitled to rely upon such materials for effective defence at the
stage of charge.
19. In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 ,
the Supreme Court held that at the stage of discharge, the Court
must evaluate the material on record to determine whether
sufficient grounds exist to proceed.
20. It is equally settled that procedural irregularities do not ipso
facto vitiate proceedings unless prejudice is demonstrated. Section
465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 511 of the BNSS)
embodies the doctrine that errors, omissions or irregularities shall
not vitiate proceedings unless failure of justice has in fact been
occasioned.
CONSIDERATION:
(A) Nature of the Sixty-Day Period Under Section 250 :
21. The submission of Mr. Mihir Joshi that the sixty-day period
merely operates as a trigger mechanism cannot be accepted in its
absolute form. The Legislature has consciously introduced a
defined time frame to promote expeditious Sessions trials. If the
accused were permitted to file discharge applications at any stage
Page 12 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:28:00 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/2627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026
without reference to limitation, the statutory prescription would
be rendered nugatory.
22. However, it is equally well settled that limitation provisions
ordinarily regulate the remedy and not the underlying defence.
The right to seek discharge is not extinguished automatically upon
expiry of sixty days; rather, the remedy becomes subject to the
Court’s discretion in condoning delay upon sufficient cause being
shown. Further even if the accused does not prefer an application
for discharge the Court is duty bound to apply it’s judicial mind
before framing of the charge and if no sufficient material for
framing of charge is found the Court has to discharge the accused.
23. Thus, by virtue of Section 250(1) an accused may prefer an
application for discharge within a period of sixty days from the
date of commitment of the case under section 232, if at all he
desires to prefer such an application, but, in the considered
opinion of the Court, it does not exclude the judicial discretion in
appropriate cases or where delay is not attributable to the accused
as in the present facts of the case. Thus, it can be held that 60 days
period under Section 250(1) of the BNSS regulates the procedure
and it does not extinguish the right to seek discharge. It also does
not exclude the judicial discretion in appropriate cases where
delay is not attributable to the accused while considering the
condonation of delay as it reflects prima facie from the facts of the
present case.
Page 13 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:28:00 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/2627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026
(B) Effect of Non-Supply of Certain Documents :
24. The contention of Mr. Nirupam Nanavati that the committal
itself stands vitiated requires careful scrutiny. Section 232
mandates compliance with Section 230 before committal. Supply
of documents is indeed a condition precedent for meaningful
defence.
25. However, the record indicates that the charge-sheet papers
forming the basis of prosecution were supplied. The grievance
pertains to certain additional materials referred to in reply to the
discharge applications.
26. The critical question is whether such non-supply at the initial
stage has occasioned demonstrable prejudice.
27. It is well settled that committal proceedings are
administrative in nature and not adjudicatory on merits. Unless
failure of justice is shown, committal cannot be declared void for
every procedural lapse.
28. If the prosecution seeks to rely upon additional documents
beyond the charge-sheet record, such materials must ordinarily be
brought on record in accordance with law and furnished to the
accused before being relied upon. However, such subsequent
supply, by itself, would not retroactively invalidate the committal
or the opening of the case unless prejudice affecting fair trial is
Page 14 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:28:00 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/2627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026
established.
29. In the present case, the appropriate remedy is not to declare
the committal void ab initio but to ensure that discharge
applications are considered afresh after complete supply of all
materials sought to be relied upon by the prosecution. However, it
would be apt to point out that the accused have not challenged the
committal order or even the opening of the case however to do
complete justice the said arguments are dealt with.
(C) Whether delay deserves condonation :
30. In the instant case, even the dates mentioned, as referred in
the details referred in the tabular form in paragraph 6 above, are
taken as it is, the maximum delay, beyond sixty days, is
approximately of 140 days (in CrRA Nos. 49/2026 & 226/2026).
Considering the fact that certain documents were supplied
subsequently and that the right of discharge is a valuable statutory
safeguard, this Court is satisfied that sufficient cause has been
shown.
31. The learned Sessions Judge, while rejecting condonation,
adverted to merits. As held in Pathapati Subba Reddy (supra) ,
such approach is impermissible.
32. Criminal jurisprudence must reconcile expeditious trial with
fairness. A rigid and technical approach in the present facts would
Page 15 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:28:00 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/2627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026
defeat substantial justice.
CONCLUSION:
33. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds:
(i) An accused may prefer an application for discharge
within sixty day period ordinarily, but, beyond 60 days, does
not extinguish his right to seek discharge where delay is
satisfactorily explained.
(ii) The committal proceedings are not rendered void
merely because certain additional documents were supplied
subsequently; however, fairness requires that discharge
applications be considered only after complete supply of
materials relied upon by the prosecution.
(iii) The learned Sessions Judge erred in refusing to
condone the delay and in entering into the merits at the stage
of condonation.
FINAL ORDER :
34. The impugned orders in these revision applications, as
detailed in paragraph 6 above, are quashed and set aside. The
delay in filing the discharge applications is hereby condoned.
Page 16 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:28:00 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/2627/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/03/2026
35. The learned trial Court is directed to decide the discharge
applications afresh, on merits, after ensuring that all documents
sought to be relied upon by the prosecution are duly furnished to
the accused, and after affording full opportunity of hearing to both
sides. The learned Court shall remain uninfluenced by any
observations contained in the earlier orders or in this order.
36. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
[ P. M. Raval, J. ]
hiren/DB/70,71,72,76/DB/2/47/5326
Page 17 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 15:28:00 IST 2026