At discharge and charge-framing stages, courts cannot conduct a mini-trial on evidentiary contradictions.

The appeals arose from proceedings concerning the alleged violence at K.G. Halli Police Station on 11 August 2020.

The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired, assembled unlawfully, attacked the police station with stones, wooden clubs and iron rods, disobeyed the curfew order, obstructed police personnel, damaged public property, and set fire to two-wheelers and an Innova car. It further alleged that the acts constituted a “terrorist act” under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”).

The State Police initially registered cases, after which the investigation was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (“NIA”).

The appellants, who were arrayed as various accused in Special Case No.141/2021, challenged either the framing of charges dated 21 May 2025 or the rejection of their discharge application dated 5 August 2024.

The Special Court rejected the discharge application and framed charges under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 188, 353, 427 and 435 read with Section 149 IPC, Sections 16, 18 and 20 UAPA, and Section 2 of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981.

The appellants approached the High Court under Section 21(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.

1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in framing charges against the appellants under the IPC, the special property-damage enactment, and Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the UAPA?

2. Whether the appellants were entitled to discharge on the ground that the material collected by the prosecution did not disclose a prima facie case?

The Court applied Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, under which an accused may be discharged where, upon consideration of the record and documents, there is no sufficient ground for proceeding; Section 228 CrPC, which permits framing of charge where there is ground for presuming that the accused committed an offence.

It relied on Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, AIR 1979 SC 366, Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368, and State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, (2021) 2 Crimes (SC) 101, for the principles governing discharge and framing of charge.

At this stage, the Court is required to assess whether the prosecution material discloses a prima facie case or grounds for presuming the commission of an offence, but it cannot conduct a meticulous evaluation of evidence or a mini-trial.

The Court also considered Section 15(1)(a)(i) and (ii) UAPA concerning a terrorist act, including conduct intended to threaten or likely to strike terror in the people, in the context of the charges under Sections 16, 18 and 20 UAPA.

The High Court found that the charge-sheet contained specific allegations against the appellants concerning the unlawful assembly, attack on the police station, obstruction of police officers, destruction of property, burning of vehicles, and the alleged conspiracy and terrorist act.

The prosecution material included witness statements of L.W.1, L.W.23 and L.Ws.30–35, allegations identifying the individual roles of the accused, and call-detail records allegedly showing communication among the accused and their presence near the place of occurrence.

The Court held that conspiracy ordinarily cannot be established through direct evidence alone and that the relevant circumstances must be examined at trial.

The appellants’ objections regarding contradictions between statements recorded by the State Police and the NIA, identity of the persons involved, absence of clear facial identification in the videos, alleged inconsistencies in the FIRs and remand applications, and the validity or sufficiency of the sanction involved appreciation of evidence.

Such issues could be tested through examination and cross-examination of witnesses and could not be conclusively determined at the discharge or charge-framing stage.

Applying the rule against conducting a mini-trial, the Court held that the materials disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed against the appellants and that the Trial Court had correctly applied the principles governing Sections 227 and 228 CrPC.

It held that the Trial Court neither erred in framing charges nor in rejecting the appellants’ discharge application, since the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie case requiring trial.

The appellants’ objections concerning contradictions, identification, video evidence, conspiracy, and sanction were left open for consideration during trial.

Accordingly, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1313 of 2025 and 1180 of 2025 were dismissed.