Orders rejecting discharge applications must assign brief reasons indicating why the material justifies putting the accused to trial.

The applicant, a non-executive Director of Bhadresh Trading Company Limited (BTCL), was arraigned as Accused No. 13 in an FIR alleging a criminal conspiracy to defraud RBL Bank of approximately ₹24.64 Crores.

It was alleged that the accused persons used forged documents to obtain agricultural loans in the names of 119 farmers, with BTCL acting as a corporate guarantor.

The applicant contended she was a namesake director, never participated in day-to-day affairs, and was absent during the board meeting that authorized the guarantee.

Following a charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet, the applicant filed a discharge application (Exh. 108), which was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Kachchh at Bhuj via an order dated 17.12.2025.

The court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 482 Cr.P.C.) regarding inherent powers and the principles of Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. (now corresponding to BNSS) governing discharge.

Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing that the court must consider the record, documents, and submissions of both parties to determine if sufficient grounds exist.

Sajjan Kumar v. CBI established that while a court shouldn't conduct a "mini-trial," it must sift evidence to detect "grave suspicion" as opposed to mere suspicion.

State of Karnataka v. Muniswamy and Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat mandate that orders rejecting discharge must also be reasoned to allow for revisional scrutiny.

The High Court observed that the trial court's order was primarily a mechanical reproduction of the prosecution's charge-sheet narration.

The trial court erroneously held that reasons are only mandatory when allowing a discharge, not when rejecting it.

The High Court found that the trial court failed to evaluate the applicant's specific contentions—namely her lack of participation in management, absence from the relevant board meeting, and the fact that the allegedly diverted funds were returned within three days.

The High Court reasoned that since an order refusing discharge is revisable, it must briefly indicate the "tangible material" that translates into a prima facie case.

A "groundless" charge cannot be maintained on "vague suspicion" or "moral conviction" without evidence connecting the accused to the specific overt acts or conspiracy.

The Court held that the rejection of discharge was unsustainable due to a lack of reasoned application of mind regarding the applicant’s specific role.

Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Sessions Court to hear and decide the discharge application (Exh. 108) afresh on its merits within four weeks.