Whether firearms were in conscious possession is a matter for trial, not the discharge stage.

The prosecution alleged that, acting on confidential information, police chased two Bolero jeeps travelling from Muzaffarpur to Motihari and stopped them near the toll tax on NH-28. After one person fled, two persons were arrested; police reportedly recovered firearms, ammunition and mobile phones.

The petitioners challenged the trial court’s order dated 7 March 2019 rejecting their discharge petition in Sessions Trial No. 732 of 2014, arising from Chakia P.S. Case No. 371 of 2013. They argued that the firearms had not been recovered from their conscious physical possession.

The State relied on the charge-sheet and the materials collected during investigation, and submitted that the possession question was factual and for trial.

Whether the petitioners’ challenge to the rejection of their discharge application warranted interference where they disputed conscious possession of the recovered firearms.

Whether the materials collected during investigation were sufficient to frame charges against the petitioners.

The judgment cited no specific statutory provision or precedent. It applied the principles that the sufficiency of material to frame charges is assessed at the discharge stage.

A factual dispute about whether firearms were recovered from an accused’s conscious possession is ordinarily to be determined at trial, rather than resolved at that stage.

The Court accepted the State’s submission that the investigation materials, including the alleged recovery of firearms and ammunition and the charge-sheet against the petitioners, were sufficient to support framing charges.

It held that whether the recovery was from the petitioners’ conscious physical possession concerned disputed facts whose veracity could be tested at trial; the petitioners provided no convincing basis for disturbing the discharge order.

It directed that a copy of the judgment be communicated to the trial court forthwith.