Allahabad High Court
CRLR/1262/2025 of INDRA PAL Vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, HAZRATGANJ LUCKNOW on 4 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1262 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard 2. By means of the present criminal revision, the revisionist, Indra Pal is about 55 years as impeached order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the Special Judged Prevention of
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1262 of 2025
Court No. - 13
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
1. Heard
2. By means of the present criminal revision, the revisionist, Indra Pal is about 55 years as impeached order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the Special Judged Prevention of Corruption CBI-V, Lucknow (in short 'trial court') in Session case no. 3296 of 2023
3. By the order under challenge dated 07.10.2025, the trial Court has rejected the application seeking discharge filed by the revisionist. The relevant portion of the order under challenge dated 07.10.2025 reads as under:- "9. आरोप विरचन के सम्बबन्धध में माननीय उच्चचतम न्यायायालय द्वाारा अपनी विभिन्नन विधि व्यवस्थाथाओं में मार्गदर्शन करते हुए निम्नन तथ्यों पर विचार किया जाना आवश्ययक बताया है- माननीय उच्चचतम न्यायायालय की बिधि व्यवथा राजवीर सिंह बनाम उ०प्र० राज्यय ए० आई०आर० 2006 सुप्रीीम कोर्ट 1963 के प्रकरण में माननीय सर्वोच्चच न्यायायालय द्वाारा यह विधिक सिद्धाान्तत प्रतिपादित किया गया है कि आरोप विरचित किये जाते समय न्यायायालय को यह देखना पर्याप्तत है कि अभियुक्त के विरूद्ध अपराध गठित करने के लिए पर्याप्तत साक्ष्यय है अथवा नहीं और इस स्ततर पर केवल प्रथम् दृष्ट्या ा ही साक्ष्यों को देखा जाना पर्याप्तत है।
माननीय उच्चचतम न्यायायालय की विधि व्यवस्थाथा Shivraj Singh Ahlawat and others
V. State of U.P. and others AIR 2013 S.C. 52 के प्रकरण में माननीय उच्चचतम न्यायायालय के द्वाारा व्यवस्थाथा दी गयी है कि Even strong suspicion about existence of facts constituting offence is sufficient to refuse discharge.
विधि व्यवस्थाथा Palwinder Singh Vs Balwinder Singh 2009(3) SCC 850
माननीय उच्चचतम न्यायायालय के द्वाारा व्यवस्थाथा दी गयी है कि The Jurisdiction of Sessions Judge of discharge is very limited. Charges can also be framed on the basis of strong suspicion. Marshaling and appreciatin of evidence
Versus
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Gaurav Pandey, Mayank Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Aakash Prasad
Indra Pal
.....Revisionist(s)
Central Bureau Of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Hazratganj Lucknow
.....Opposite
Party(s)
is not in the domain of the court at that point of time.
विधि व्यवस्थाथा State of Tamilnadu Represented by the Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti corruption Vs N. Suresh Rajan 2014(11) SCC 709
माननीय उच्चचतम न्यायायालय के द्वाारा व्यवस्थाथा दी गयी है कि At the Stage of consideration of application for discharge Court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by prosecution are true and to evaluate the said materials and document with a view to find out whether the facts emerging there from taken at face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence.
अतः उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्थाथाओं से यह स्पपष्ट हो जाता है कि आरोप विरचन किये जाने के स्ततर पर न्यायायालय को पत्राावली पर उपलब्धध साक्ष्यय का सूक्ष्मम विश्लेेषण नहीं करना है अपितु मात्र यह देखना है कि आरोपित अभियुक्त के विरूद्ध प्रथम दृष्टया मामला बन रहा है अथवा नहीं और यदि आरोपित अभियुक्त के विरुद्ध गम्भीभीर सन्देदेह भी हो तो ऐसी स्थिति में भी उसके विरूद्ध आरोप विरचन किये जाने के आधार पर्याप्तत होते है।
10. अभियुक्त द्वाारा जहाँ तक प्राार्थना-पत्र में लिये गये अन्यय आधारों का प्रश्नन है, तो इस स्ततर पर साक्षियों के साक्ष्यय का गुण-दोष के आधार पर विश्लेेषण किये बगैर कोई निष्ककर्ष नहीं दिया जा सकता है। पत्राावली पर उपलब्धध साक्ष्यों के आधार पर अभियुक्त के विरुद्ध प्रथम दृष्टया आरोप विरचन का आधार पर्याप्तत पाया जाता है।
11. अतः अभियुक्त के विरूद्ध पत्राावली पर उपलब्धध मौखिक, दस्तातावेजी साक्ष्यय एवं माननीय उच्चचतम न्यायायालय द्वाारा उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्थाथाओं में दिये गये निर्देशों के प्रकाश में आरोप विरचित किये जाने का आधार पर्याप्तत है। तद्नुसार प्राार्थी / अभियुक्त का उन्मोमोचन प्राार्थना-पत्र निरस्तत किये जाने योग्यय है।
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
आदेश
अभियुक्त इन्द्रपाल की ओर से प्रस्तुतुत उन्मोमोचन प्राार्थना पत्र बी-7 निरस्तत किया जाता है। अभियुक्त आरोप विरचन हेतु व्यक्तिगत रूप से दिनाक 15.10.2025 को न्यायायालय के समक्ष उपस्थित हो।"
4. Sri Mayank Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist before this Court stated that there are various lacunas in the prosecution case so far as the same relates to the present revision but at this stage he is impeaching the order dated 07.10.2025 on a limited ground, which relates to Section
CrPC, Now Section
BNSS, accordingly to which material/documentary evidence filed along with the final report/charge- sheet submitted by the I.O. should be provided to an accused. In this case, the application seeking discharge was moved by the revisionist based upon the documents which were provided in terms of the aforesaid provisions. However, the trial court while rejecting the application seeking discharge filed by the revisionist vide order dated 07.10.2025, considered the documents which were later on filed and was not provided to the revisionist and moreover the said documents till date have not been taken on record.
5. It is further stated that the charge-sheet was prepared on 30.09.2023 and submitted before the trial Court on 03.11.2023. CRLR No. 1262 of 2025
6. It is also stated that the documents which have been considered by the trial Court were placed on record by way of application dated 09.06.2025 and till date no effective order has been passed by the trial court on the said application.
7. The aforesaid facts have also not been refuted by the counsel for the CBI, Akash Prasad.
8. Considering the aforesaid, this Court finds that interference in the matter is required.
9. The order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the Special Judged Prevention of Corruption CBI-V, Lucknow is hereby set aside with liberty to the applicant to move applicant a fresh seeking discharge in terms of Section 239 CrPC, Now 262 BNSS, if the trial Court thinks it appropriate to consider the prayer sought in the applicant seeking discharge after taking the documents on record filed along with the application dated 09.06.2025, which shall be provided to the accused-revisionist.
10. Liberty is also given to the revisionist to challenge the order passed on the application seeking discharge on the grounds available if the same is against the accused-revisionist.
11. With the aforesaid, the instant revision is allowed. Cost made easy. December 4, 2025 Anurag CRLR No. 1262 of 2025
(Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench