Basant Bind And 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5753 of 2025
Basant Bind And 2 Others
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shailendra Yadav, Sudhakar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 92
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Devendra Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri
Shailendra Yadav, the learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri
Roshan Kumar Singh, the learned A.G.A. apearing on behalf of the
State and perused the records.
2. By means of the instant revision, the revisionists have challenged
the validity of an order dated 08.09.2025, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 14, Prayagraj in Session Trial
No. 768 of 2022, State versus Arvind Bind and others, arising out of
Case Crime No. 159 of 2017, under Section 395, 412 I.P.C. Police
Station Daraganj, District Allahabad, whereby an application filed by
the revisionists seeking their discharge has been rejected.
3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged on
14.04.2017 against Pintoo Nishad and his three unnamed
accomplices alleging that the complainant is a resident of District
Thane, Maharashtra. The named accused Pintoo Nishad was his
worker. Pintoo Nishad had called the complainant to return him the
money taken as advance salary. When the complainant reached
there along with his friends Jitendra Agnihotri and Raju Bhiya Kadu,
Pintoo Nishad and three accomplices came there on two motorcycles
and they tried to snatch away the bags being carried by the friends of
the complainant. They could not snatch the bag of Raju Kadu, but
they took away the bag of Jitendra Agnihotri, wherein rupees 16 lakhs
were kept.

CRLR No. 5753 of 2025
2
4. During investigation, on the basis of information received from a
mukhbir, the police intercepted two motorcycles on each of which
three persons were riding. One motorcycle ran away and one of the
persons riding on the other motorcycle also escaped. Two persons,
Arvind Bind and Sikandar riding one motorcycle were apprehended.
They confessed their involvement in commission of the offence and
they further stated that the third person riding on their motorcycle was
Pintoo Nishad and the persons riding the other motorcycle were Girja
Shankar, Kamlesh Bind and Basant Bind (the revisionists), all of
whom had escaped. Rupees 14 lakhs in cash were recovered from
the dicky of the motorcycle.
5. After investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge
sheet dated 18.07.2017 against Sikandar, Arvind and Basant and the
investigation regarding the other accused persons was continuing.
6. The Special C.J.M. took cognizance of the offences by means of
an order dated 18.07.2017 and summoned the accused persons to
face the trial.
7. The revisionist filed an application seeking his discharge stating
that the FIR has been lodged with a delay of 4 hours without giving
any explanation for the delay. It was further stated in the discharge
application that Sikandar Nishad owns a high-quality sawmill, he is
engaged in his own business. Sikandar Nishad and his brother
Mahendranath had withdrawn Rs. 7,50,000/- cash for purchasing a
plot. Arvind Bind is a building contractor and he had also collected
money for purchasing a plot along with Sikandar Nishad. They were
going to get a sale deed executed on 18.04.2017 through parade
ground and the police arrested them at the same time and wrongly
showed recovery of rupees 14 lakhs from them.
8. As the impugned order has been passed under Section 227
Cr.P.C., it will be appropriate to have a look at the aforesaid provision
before proceeding further. The aforesaid provision reads as follows: -
" 227. Discharge .—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

CRLR No. 5753 of 2025
3
not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused,
he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for
so doing."
9. In Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia,
(1989) 1 SCC 715 , the Hon'ble Court while examining the scope of
Section 227 held as under: -
" 14. … Section 227 itself contains enough guidelines as to
the scope of inquiry for the purpose of discharging an
accused. It provides that "the Judge shall discharge when
he considers that there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused". The "ground" in the
context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for
putting the accused on trial. It is in the trial, the guilt or the
innocence of the accused will be determined and not at the
time of framing of charge. The court, therefore, need not
undertake an elaborate inquiry in sifting and weighing the
material. Nor is it necessary to delve deep into various
aspects. All that the court has to consider is whether the
evidentiary material on record, if generally accepted, would
reasonably connect the accused with the crime.'
10. In Rajbir Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 4 SCC 51 it was held
that in accordance with Section 227, the High Court must ascertain
whether there is "sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused" or there is ground for "presuming" that the offence has been
committed.
11. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16
SCC 605 , wherein it was held that:-
" 25. It is trite that at the st finding out if the facts emerging
therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence
of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or
offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the
evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage
to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At
this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a
view to find out if there is ground for "presuming" that the
accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose
of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a
conviction."

CRLR No. 5753 of 2025
4
12. The difference between the approach with which the Court should
examine the matter in while considering an application for discharge
under Section 227 Cr. P.C. and while framing charge under Section
228 of the Code has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 , in the
following words:
" 17. Framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by
the trial court in terms of Section 228 of the Code, unless
the accused is discharged under Section 227 of the Code.
Under both these provisions, the court is required to
consider the "record of the case" and documents submitted
therewith and, after hearing the parties, may either
discharge the accused or where it appears to the court and
in its opinion there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence, it shall frame the
charge. Once the facts and ingredients of the Section
exists, then the court would be right in presuming that there
is ground to proceed against the accused and frame the
charge accordingly. This presumption is not a presumption
of law as such. The satisfaction of the court in relation to
the existence of constituents of an offence and the facts
leading to that offence is a sine qua non for exercise of
such jurisdiction. It may even be weaker than a prima facie
case. There is a fine distinction between the language of
Sections 227 and 228 of the Code. Section 227 is the
expression of a definite opinion and judgment of the Court
while Section 228 is tentative. Thus, to say that at the stage
of framing of charge, the Court should form an opinion that
the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is
an approach which is impermissible in terms of Section 228
of the Code.
*
30. We have already noticed that the legislature in its
wisdom has used the expression "there is ground for
presuming that the accused has committed an offence".
This has an inbuilt element of presumption once the
ingredients of an offence with reference to the allegations
made are satisfied, the Court would not doubt the case of
the prosecution unduly and extend its jurisdiction to quash

CRLR No. 5753 of 2025
5
the charge in haste. A Bench of this Court in State of
Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659
referred to the meaning of the word "presume" while relying
upon Black's Law Dictionary. It was defined to mean "to
believe or accept upon probable evidence"; "to take as
proved until evidence to the contrary is forthcoming". In
other words, the truth of the matter has to come out when
the prosecution evidence is led, the witnesses are cross-
examined by the defence, the incriminating material and
evidence is put to the accused in terms of Section 313 of
the Code and then the accused is provided an opportunity
to lead defence, if any. It is only upon completion of such
steps that the trial concludes with the court forming its final
opinion and 3 All. Km. Ruchi Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. &
Anr. 33 delivering its judgment. Merely because there was
a civil transaction between the parties would not by itself
alter the status of the allegations constituting the criminal
offence."
13. Thus the law regarding the approach to be adopted by the court
while considering an application for discharge of the accused persons
under Section 227 and approach while framing charges under
Section 228 of the Code, is that while considering an application for
discharge of the accused under Section 227 of the Code, the Court
has to form a definite opinion, upon consideration of the record of the
case and the documents submitted therewith, that there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. However, while
framing charges, the Court is not required to form a definite opinion
that the accused is guilty of committing an offence. The truth of the
matter will come out when evidence is led during the trial. Once the
facts and ingredients of the Section exist, the court would presume
that there is ground to proceed against the accused and frame the
charge accordingly and the Court would not doubt the case of the
prosecution.
14. In State of M.P. v. Deepak (Supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reiterated the well established principle of law that: -
" 16. It was also noted that at the stage of framing of
charges, the Court has to consider the material only with a
view to find out if there is a ground for "presuming" that the
accused had committed the offence"

CRLR No. 5753 of 2025
6
15. When this court examines the facts of the present case in light of
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above
mentioned cases, I am of the view that the impugned order dated
08.09.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No. 14, Prayagraj in Session Trial No. 768 of 2022, State versus
Arvind Bind and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 159 of 2017,
under Section 395, 412 I.P.C. Police Station Daraganj, District
Allahabad does not suffer from any error or illegality and there is no
error in the impugned order which may call for interference by this
Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision is dismissed .
November 3, 2026
Ram.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAM SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad