[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB]

Reportable

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

Judgment reserved on: 01.10.2026

Judgment delivered on: 26.10.2026

Judgment (Full) uploaded on:26.10.2026

D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 266/2024

CNR: RJHC020761782024 | URN: CRLAD / 469U / 2024

Aakif Ateeque Nachan @ Aakib (A-2) S/o Shri Ateeque Nachan,

Aged About 44 Years, R/o 522, Boriwali, Post Padgha, Thana

Padgha, Tehsil Bhwandi, District Thane, Maharashtra (At Present

Confined At Central Jail Jaipur)

---Accused-Appellant

Versus

N.I.A., New Delhi through Special P.P.

----Respondent

Connected With

D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 267/2024

CNR: RJHC020746602024 | URN: CRLAD / 471U / 2024

Mazhar Khan @ Mazhar @ Muzhar (A-8) S/o Israiel Khan, Aged

About 35 Years, R/o House No 89 Samta Nagar Anand Colony

Police Station Road, Ratlam Madhya Pradesh (At Present Central

Jail Jaipur Rajasthan)

----Accused Applicant/Appellant

Versus

The National Investigation Agency (NIA), New Delhi Through

Public Prosecutor

----Respondent

D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 301/2024

CNR: RJHC020791302024 | URN: CRLAD / 528U / 2024

Imran Khan S/o Mohammad Sharif Khan, Aged About 41 Years,

R/o 230 Mohan Nagar, Industrial Area Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh,

At Present Confined In High Security Jail Ajmer Rajasthan

----Appellant

Versus

National Investigation Agency, Through The Public Prosecutor

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (2 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

----Respondent

D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 380/2024

CNR: RJHC020906922024 | URN: CRLAD / 643U / 2024

1.Aamin Khan @ Ameen Pawda @ Aamin Khan @ Seth S/o

Late Aslam Khan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o House No. 202

Sherani Pura PS Station Road, Ratlam Madhya Pradesh (At

Present Confined At Central Jail Jaipur)

2.Mohammed Ameen Patel @ Abid, Aged about 34 years S/o

Samad Patel, R/o 146, Sherani Pura, PS Station Road,

Ratlam Madhya Pradesh (At Present Confined At Central Jail

Jaipur)

3.Saifulla @ Saifu Khan, Aged about 49 years old, S/o Ramjani

Ali, R/o Sherani Pura Officer Colony, Road, PS Station Road,

Ratlam Madhya Pradesh (At Present Confined At Central Jail

Jaipur)

4.Altamash Khan @ Altamash @ Althamash @ Altu S/o Mohd.

Bashir Khan, Aged About 28 Years, R/o House No. 18,

Sherani Pura, Officer Colony Road, PS Do Batti Ratlam

Madhya Pradesh (At Present Confined At Central Jail Ajmer)

5.Zubair Khan @ Juber @ Zubair @ Zuber @ Zafu S/o Fakir

Mohammad Pathan, Aged About 44 Years old, R/o Gali No.

02, Anand Colony, PS Station Road, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh

(At Present Confined At Central Jail Jaipur)

6.Mohammad Yunus Saki @ Mohd Yunus @ Yunus Khan @

Yunus S/o Mohammed Yunus Saki, Aged About 28 Years old,

R/o House No. 60 Kunjado Ka Was, PS Manak Chowk,

Ratlam Madhya Pradesh (At Present Confined At Central Jail

Jaipur)

7.Imran @ Imran Khan @ Imran Kunjda S/o Mohammed

Yunus, Aged About 24 Years, R/o House No. 51, Kunjdo Ka

Was, PS Manak Chowk, Ratlam Madhya Pradesh (At Present

Confined At Central Jail Jaipur)

----Appellants

Versus

State, Through N.I.A. New Delhi Through Public Prosecutor

----Respondent

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (3 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Syed Saadat Ali, Adv. with

Ms. Uzma Ilyas, Adv., Ms. Aafreen

Rizvi, Adv., Mr. Nadeem Qadeer, Adv.,

Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv.

Mr. R.B. Sharma (Ganthola), Adv.

Ms. Deeksha Dwivedi, Adv. (through

VC) with Mr. Tekchand Swami, Adv.

Mr. Lakshya Sharma, Adv. with

Mr. Yash S. Vijay, Adv. &

Mr. Shikhar Aggarwal, Adv. (through

VC)

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sneh Deep Khyaliya, Special PP

NIA assisted by Mr. Siddharth

Sharma, Adv. & Mr. Himanshu

Choudhary, Adv.

Division Bench

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY K. AGRAWAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

C.A.V. Judgment

For sake of exposition, this judgment is divided in following

parts:-

S.No. Particulars Page Nos.

1. Prefatory facts and nature of

reliefs sought in the present batch

of appeals

4-8

2. Submissions made by learned

counsel appearing on behalf of

appellants

8-17

3. Submissions made by learned

counsel appearing on behalf of

respondents/non-appellants

17-20

4. Discussion, analysis and findings 20

5. Scope of adjudication 20-23

6. Adjudication of prayers made, as

per the merits/de-merits of the

case

23-26

7. The individual roles attributed to

the appellants

26-31

8. The statutory framework and

gravity of alleged offence

31-33

9. Whether the impugned order

warrants interference

34-36

10. Conclusion 36

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (4 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

PREFATORY FACTS AND NATURE OF RELIEFS SOUGHT IN

THE PRESENT BATCH OF APPEALS :

1.The present batch of appeals arises out of proceedings

emanating from the same underlying criminal investigation and

involves overlapping questions of fact and law concerning the

allegations levelled by the prosecution, the material collected

during investigation, and the legality of the order passed by the

learned Trial Court at the stage of consideration of discharge and

framing of charges. Having regard to the commonality of the

factual background, the interlaced and interwoven nature of the

controversy, and the substantial overlap in the issues requiring

adjudication, the matters are being considered and adjudicated

upon by way of the present common judgment, so as to ensure

consistency in the adjudication of the issues arising therefrom and

to obviate the possibility of conflicting determinations.

2.The genesis of the prosecution case lies in an incident dated

30.03.2022, when a police naka party of Police Station Nimbahera,

District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, intercepted a Baleno car bearing

registration No. MP43CA7091 at Wonder Chouraha, Nimbahera.

Upon search of the vehicle, explosive material measuring upto 3

kgs., together with certain articles including watches, batteries,

wires and bulbs, was allegedly recovered and seized. In

connection therewith, FIR No. 150/2022 came to be registered at

Police Station Nimbahera Sadar, District Chittorgarh, for offences

of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (5 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

“the Explosive Substance Act”), and of the Unlawful Activities

(Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “the UAPA”).

3.The investigation was initially undertaken by the local police

and was thereafter carried out by the Anti-Terrorist Squad

(hereinafter referred to as “ATS”), Udaipur. Subsequently,

pursuant to the order dated 20.04.2022 issued by the Ministry of

Home Affairs, Government of India, the investigation was

entrusted to the National Investigation Agency (hereinafter

referred to as “NIA”), which re-registered the case as RC-

18/2022/NIA/DLI and proceeded with further investigation. Upon

completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed

against eleven accused persons, of whom eight were stated to

have been arrested, while three were shown as absconding.

4.The prosecution case, in substance, alleges the existence of

a group named ‘SUFA’, purportedly led by accused-Imran Khan,

and attributes to its members a conspiracy involving the

procurement of arms, ammunition and explosive substances for

the commission of terrorist acts and other alleged unlawful

activities. The allegations against the accused persons, including

the appellants/petitioners in the present proceedings, arise in the

context of their alleged association with the said group and the

alleged preparatory activities attributed to its members. The

precise role ascribed to each accused, however, is required to be

examined with reference to the allegations and material

specifically relied upon by the prosecution against the concerned

individual.

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (6 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

5.Insofar as the appellant, Mazhar Khan, is concerned, the

prosecution, inter alia, alleges that he was associated with the

aforesaid group, attended meetings allegedly convened at the

poultry farm of the principal accused, and was involved in

discussions concerning the alleged conspiracy to place an

improvised explosive device (hereinafter referred to as “IED”) or

explosive material near Jaipur. The prosecution has further relied

upon alleged travel-related information, common mobile-phone

locations of certain accused persons on specified dates, and

internet protocol detail records (hereinafter referred to as

“IPDRs”) pertaining to the use of various mobile applications. The

appellant disputes the incriminating inference sought to be drawn

from such material and contends that the same does not establish

his participation in the alleged conspiracy or the commission of the

offences with which he has been charged.

6.The appellant's principal grievance is that the material relied

upon by the prosecution does not disclose legally sustainable

grounds for proceeding against him for the offences in question. It

is contended that the alleged travel records have not been

substantiated by the production of the relevant tickets or material

establishing actual travel; that the alleged common mobile-phone

locations do not, by themselves, establish participation in any

unlawful meeting or criminal conspiracy; and that the prosecution

has failed to establish the precise location of the alleged

farmhouse through scientifically ascertainable geographical

coordinates. The appellant further asserts that no incriminating

material connecting him with the alleged commission of the

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (7 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

offences was recovered from the mobile phones stated to have

been seized from him. These assertions constitute the appellant's

case and are noticed herein only to delineate the controversy

arising for consideration.

7.The appellant had moved an application under Section 227 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as

“CrPC”), seeking discharge from the offences alleged against him.

Upon consideration of the prosecution case and the application so

preferred, the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 31.07.2024,

partially discharged the appellants. The appellant assails the said

order to the extent that the learned Trial Court declined to

discharge him from the aforesaid offences and proceeded to frame

charges notwithstanding, according to him, the absence of

sufficient incriminating material warranting such a course.

Therefore, the nature of the relief sought in the present

proceedings is, to the extent arising from the respective

pleadings, directed against the impugned judicial orders and the

continuation of criminal proceedings pursuant thereto.

8.In view of the foregoing, the present batch of matters is

being taken up for common adjudication, the controversies arising

therein being interlaced and interwoven by reason of their

common investigative origin, overlapping factual circumstances

and connected questions requiring judicial consideration. The

matters shall accordingly be examined in the light of their

respective pleadings, the material forming part of the record, the

nature of the allegations against each accused, and the applicable

statutory provisions. The reference to common facts herein shall

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (8 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

not, however, dispense with the necessity of independently

assessing the role attributed to each accused and the legal

sufficiency of the material relied upon against such accused, in

accordance with law.

SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING

ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT S :

9.The appellants assail the impugned orders dated 31.07.2024,

whereby the learned Trial Court, while discharging certain accused

persons from specific offences, proceeded to frame charges under

the remaining provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908,

the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Their principal

grievance is that the material relied upon by the prosecution does

not sufficiently establish their individual involvement in the alleged

offences. It is contended that the alleged recovery of explosive

material from the vehicle, the absence of certain appellants at the

time of its interception, the lack of recovery during searches

conducted at the premises of certain accused persons, and the

material relied upon to establish the alleged conspiracy have not

been appropriately appreciated. The appellants further submit that

the allegations concerning their association with the group styled

as ‘SUFA’, participation in meetings and alleged training in the

preparation of IEDs must be assessed individually in the light of

the evidence attributed to each of them.

10.Accordingly, the appellants seek setting aside of the

impugned orders to the extent that charges have been framed

against them, contending that the material on record does not

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (9 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

warrant continuation of the proceedings for the offences in

question.

In D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 266/2024

11.It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant that the appellant-Aakif Atteq Nahar, arrayed as Accused

No. 2, assails the impugned order dated 31.07.2024, whereby

charges have been framed against him for offences under Sections

4(a)(i) and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908; Sections

16(1)(b), 18 and 20 of the UAPA; and Sections 120-B, 121-A and

122 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant stands

discharged from the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive

Substances Act, 1908, and Sections 18A and 18B of the UAPA.

12.It was contended that the appellant was neither

apprehended from the vehicle in which the explosive material was

allegedly recovered nor was he present at the time of the

interception of the said vehicle. The prosecution case concerning

the recovery of explosive material and batteries from the vehicle

must, therefore, be distinguished from the allegations

subsequently levelled against the appellant. It was further

submitted that the appellant’s alleged involvement cannot be

inferred merely from the recovery effected in circumstances in

which he was not present. The appellant was arrested on

15.05.2022, approximately two months after the vehicle had been

intercepted; this circumstance assumes significance in the context

of the prosecution's attempt to connect the appellant with the

explosive material allegedly recovered from the vehicle. Further, it

was contended that the prosecution has not demonstrated a

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (10 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

sufficient evidentiary connection between the said recovery and

his alleged participation in the offences.

13.Pursuant to the search conducted at the appellant's house on

24.05.2022, no illegal material was recovered, the absence of any

such recovery is specifically relied upon by the appellant as a

circumstance which, according to him, undermines the allegation

of his involvement in the alleged unlawful activities. Learned

counsel submitted that the search of the appellant’s premises did

not yield any material of the nature alleged by the prosecution to

connect him directly with the explosive substances recovered from

the vehicle.

14.Further, one of the allegations attributed to the appellant is

that he attended a meeting for learning the preparation of IEDs;

however, the same is disputed by the appellant as incriminating

inference sought to be drawn from this allegation and it was

contended that the prosecution must establish the evidentiary

basis for attributing to him participation in the alleged preparation

of IEDs and the offences subsequently charged against him. The

prosecution has also relied upon training material allegedly

recorded in a phone belonging to the appellant and subsequently

transferred to a pen drive belonging to Accused No. 3, Ameen

Pawada. However, mere reference to such recording and transfer

does not, without examination of the material and its connection

with the appellant, establish his involvement in the alleged

offences. The alleged recording, its subsequent transfer and the

ownership of the device on which it was stored are circumstances

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (11 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

which, require careful scrutiny before an incriminating inference

can be drawn against him.

15.Thus, in summation, it can be noted that the appellant's

principal contention was that there was no direct recovery of

explosive material or other illegal material from his person or

premises, that he was not apprehended from the vehicle in

question, and that no sufficient evidence has been demonstrated

to connect him with the explosive material allegedly recovered

therefrom. The appellant also relies upon the absence of direct

recovery and the alleged deficiency in the connecting material as

grounds for challenging the framing of charges. In support of the

submissions made insofar, and to strengthen the arguments

contended, learned counsel had placed reliance upon a catena of

judgments, inter alia, Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal

& Anr.

1

, State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh

2

, Sajjan Kumar v.

CBI

3

, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander

4

, Dipakbhai

Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat

5

, National

Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali

6

,

Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India

7

, Vernon v. State of

Maharashtra

8

, Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

9

.

16.In these circumstances, the appellant sought setting aside of

the impugned order dated 31.07.2024 to the extent that charges

11979 (3) SCC 4

21977 (4) SCC 39

32010 (9) SCC 368

42012 (9) SCC 460

52019 (16) SCC 547

62019 (5) SCC 1

72021 INSC 688

82023 INSC 655

9AIR 1952 SC 159

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (12 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

have been framed against him and prays for discharge from the

offences in respect of which his application was rejected.

In D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 261/2024

17.The appellant, Mazhar Khan, challenged the impugned order

dated 31.07.2024, whereby charges have been framed against

him under Sections 4(a)(i) and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act,

1908; Sections 16(1)(b), 18 and 20 of the UAPA; and Sections

120-B, 121-A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The

appellant has been discharged from the offences under Sections 5

of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Sections 18A and 18B

of the UAPA. It was submitted that the prosecution case

concerning the recovery of explosive substances rests, inter alia,

upon the interception of a vehicle in which two plastic bags, each

stated to contain approximately three kilograms of explosive

material, were allegedly found, together with three watches, three

sets of batteries, three bundles of wires and six small bulbs. The

FIR was initially registered at Police Station Chittorgarh as FIR No.

150/2022 and was thereafter re-registered by the National

Investigation Agency as RC-18/2022/NIA/DLI. It was submitted

that the factum of registration of the case and the recovery

alleged therein must be distinguished from the question whether

the material relied upon establishes his individual involvement in

the offences charged.

18.The prosecution has relied upon alleged air tickets found in a

mobile phone to suggest an association between the appellant and

Imran Khan. However, the appellant disputes the evidentiary

significance attributed to the said material and specifically

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (13 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

contends that the air tickets were not exhibited by the

prosecution. It was stoutly contended that the alleged tickets

cannot be treated as conclusive proof of the appellant’s

participation in the alleged conspiracy without the material relied

upon being properly established and connected with the

allegations against him. Further, reliance was placed upon the

discrepancy or deficiency concerning the locations reflected in the

prosecution material, including the reference to Ratlam in the case

notes. It was submitted that the location material must be

assessed in its proper context and that no incriminating conclusion

ought to be drawn merely from a location reference without

examining its evidentiary connection with the alleged meetings or

unlawful activities.

19.Further, learned counsel argued that the appellant's

challenge is also founded upon the fact that no sufficient evidence

has been produced to establish the allegations levelled against

him. The material relied upon by the prosecution, including the

alleged air tickets and location information, must be assessed in

its entirety and in relation to the specific role attributed to the

appellant. The appellant accordingly submitted that the impugned

order warrants interference insofar as it permits the prosecution to

proceed against him for the aforesaid offences.

In D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 301/2024

20.It was submitted that the appellant-Imran Khan, challenged

the impugned order dated 31.07.2024, whereby charges have

been framed against him for offences under Sections 16, 18, 18A,

18B and 20 of the UAPA; Sections 120-B and 121 of the Indian

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (14 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

Penal Code, 1860; and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive

Substances Act, 1908. It was averred that the appellant was

arrested from his house in Rajasthan on 31.03.2022, and that

Atmash Khan, Zubair and Saifulla were arrested from the car at

approximately 7:40 p.m. on the alleged date of incidence. The

appellant had been called for interrogation on 01.03.2022. These

circumstances form part of the factual background against which

the allegations and the material relied upon by the prosecution

against the appellant are required to be examined.

21.That the prosecution has alleged the existence of a group

styled as ‘SUFA’ and has attributed to the appellant the role of

forming a group inclined towards ISIS; however, the appellant

challenges the allegations and the conclusions sought to be drawn

therefrom and submitted that the accusations must be examined

in the light of the material actually available on record. A material

ground urged on behalf of the appellant concerns the alleged

destruction or demolition of the poultry farm and the house before

the recovery sought to be relied upon by the prosecution. In this

regard, it was submitted that the condition of the premises and

the fact that the same had allegedly been destroyed or

demolished before the recovery are relevant circumstances while

assessing the reliability and evidentiary significance of the alleged

recovery. Nevertheless, the appellants herein were also subjected

to custodial torture.

22.It was further contended that the evidence relied upon

against the appellant is weak and insufficient to sustain the

charges framed by the learned Trial Court. According to the

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (15 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

appellant, the allegations concerning the group, the alleged

association with ISIS and the alleged unlawful activities must be

assessed on the basis of the material connecting him individually

with the offences alleged. Thus, it was argued that the impugned

order dated 31.07.2024 deserves to be set aside insofar as it

directs the framing of charges against him. He seeks discharge

from the offences referred to in the impugned order, in accordance

with law.

In D.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 380/2024

23.The appellants herein challenge the impugned order dated

31.07.2024, whereby charges have been framed under Sections

16, 18 and 20 of the UAPA; Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive

Substances Act, 1908; Section 25 of the Arms Act; and Sections

120-B, 121-A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A principal

ground urged in the appeal concerns the alleged recovery from

the car and the circumstances surrounding the arrest of the

appellant. The appellant contended that no independent witnesses

were present at the time of arrest. Thus, the mandatory

provisions of the governing scheme were not followed, whilst

conducting the arrest of the accused.

24.It was further argued by the learned counsel that the

evidentiary basis of the alleged recovery, pointing out that there

was an inordinate delay in recovering the pickaxe (kudal) from the

car. It was submitted that the delay in effecting the said recovery

is a relevant circumstance which must be considered while

assessing the reliability and significance of the material relied

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (16 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

upon by the prosecution, however, the learned Trial Court has

failed to do so.

25.It was further argued that the absence any chemical material

in the car, as recorded in the grounds of challenge, bears upon the

prosecution's case concerning the alleged recovery and the

connection sought to be established between the appellant and

the offences charged. Further, the appellant disputed the reliance

placed upon the alleged confessional statement made before the

police. It was specifically contended that such a statement is not

judicially admissible, as the same was made merely to the police

officer. Further, learned counsel submitted that by way of the

present appeal a challenge is also made to the identification of

Accused No. 3 by ‘Patel Sahab’, described as the owner of a bulb

shop, on 07.05.2022. The appellant submitted that the

circumstances and evidentiary basis of the said identification must

be examined in their proper context before any incriminating

inference is drawn from it. Withal, qua the recovery of a gun from

Ameen Patel and the recovery of a pen drive from a demolished

house, it was argued that no reasonable nexus was drawn by the

prosecution, between the alleged recovery and the appellant.

26.The appellant's overall contention was that the prosecution

material, including the alleged recoveries, the circumstances of

arrest, the delay in recovering the pickaxe, the alleged failure to

trace chemicals in the car, the police confessional statement and

the identification referred to above, requires careful scrutiny.

Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained merely by

reference to the allegations in the charge-sheet without assessing

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (17 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

the evidentiary significance of the material relied upon against

him.

SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS/NON-APPELLANTS :

27.Per contra, in response to the grounds urged on behalf of the

appellants, it was submitted that the prosecution case emanates

from an alleged criminal conspiracy involving an organisation

styled as ‘SUFA’, which was formulated by approximately 70

youths in Ratlam. During the course of the investigation, it

emerged that differences arose between one Azjad and Imran

Khan, consequent whereupon they parted ways. The prosecution

case further alleges that the activities of the said organisation

primarily involved showing ISIS-related videos to the youth,

thereby exposing them to the ideology and activities of the said

organisation. The aforesaid circumstances constitute an integral

part of the background in which the alleged activities of the

accused persons are required to be examined.

28.It was further submitted that the prosecution case is not

confined merely to the alleged existence of the organisation or the

showing of ISIS-related videos to the youth, but further

encompasses the subsequent events concerning the alleged

conspiracy to procure and transport explosive material. It was

submitted that, on 25.03.2022, a meeting was conducted, during

which it was decided to collect improvised explosive devices

(IEDs) and transport the same to Jaipur. It was further decided

that videos of the entire act would be recorded. The prosecution

relies upon the subsequent recovery of the videos from the mobile

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (18 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

phone of accused Aakif as a material circumstance in support of

its case concerning the alleged conspiracy and the intended

transportation of the explosive material.

29.The aforesaid circumstances, when considered cumulatively,

are relied upon by the prosecution to demonstrate the alleged

progression from the activities of the organisation to the planning

and execution of the acts forming the subject matter of the

criminal proceedings. The alleged meeting dated 25.03.2022, the

decision to collect IEDs and transport the same to Jaipur, and the

proposed recording of the entire act are material circumstances

which, according to the prosecution, assume significance in

determining the nature and extent of the alleged conspiracy.

Further, it was contended that during the course of investigation,

non-bailable warrants were also issued for securing the arrest of

certain accused persons who were absconding. The issuance of

such warrants forms part of the procedural history of the

investigation and reflects the steps undertaken by the

investigating agency to secure the presence of the accused

persons and bring the investigation to its logical conclusion.

30.It was also apprised to the Court that upon further

investigation, a supplementary charge-sheet came to be

submitted on 28.11.2023. The filing of the supplementary charge-

sheet constitutes a subsequent development in the proceedings

and indicates that the investigation continued beyond the

submission of the earlier charge-sheet. It was further submitted

that the bail applications made by the accused persons had been

dismissed at different stages of the judicial process, including by

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (19 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

the High Court vide orders dated 21.01.2023 and 16.08.2023, and

thereafter by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated

18.01.2024. The prosecution thus, relied upon the aforesaid

procedural history as a relevant circumstance in the context of the

successive proceedings undertaken by the accused persons.

31.In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution

submits that the allegations against the accused persons are

required to be considered in their entirety, having regard to the

alleged formation and activities of SUFA, the differences between

Azjad and Imran Khan resulting in their separation, the alleged

dissemination of ISIS-related videos among the youth, the

meeting conducted on 25.03.2022, the decision to collect IEDs

and transport the same to Jaipur, the proposed recording of the

entire act, and the subsequent recovery of videos from the mobile

phone of accused Aakif. These circumstances, together with the

further investigation culminating in the supplementary charge-

sheet dated 28.11.2023, constitute the factual basis upon which

the prosecution seeks to sustain the proceedings against the

accused persons. The prosecution submitted that the grounds

urged by the appellants ought to be examined in the light of the

entire factual matrix and the material collected during the

investigation, rather than by considering the individual

circumstances in isolation.

32.In support of the contentions made insofar, learned counsel

had placed reliance upon a catena of dictums enunciated in, inter

alia, State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari

10

, State of Orissa v.

10 2000 (2) SCC 57

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (20 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

Debandra Nath

11

, Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab

12

& Asim Sheriff v. National Investigation Agency

13

.

DISCUSSION, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :

33.The present batch of appeals has been preferred by the

appellants assailing the common order dated 31.07.2024, passed

by the learned Trial Court, whereby their respective applications

seeking discharge from the offences alleged against them came to

be rejected, in whole or in part, and charges were framed under

the relevant provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, the

UAPA and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Since the appeals

emanate from the same investigation, arise out of substantially

interconnected factual circumstances and involve overlapping

questions concerning the sufficiency of the material collected by

the investigating agency, they are being decided by this common

judgment. Nevertheless, the allegations and the material

attributed to each appellant shall be considered in the context of

the particular role ascribed to him.

SCOPE OF ADJUDICATION :

34.At the outset, it is necessary to delineate the scope of

adjudication in the present appeals. The appellants have

approached this Court at the stage of framing of charges, and the

criminal trial is yet to culminate in a final adjudication of their guilt

or innocence. The Court is, therefore, not called upon to

determine whether the prosecution has conclusively established

the charges, nor is it required to assess whether the evidence,

11 2005 (1) Crimes 1 SC

12 2007 (1) SCC 1

13 2019 (7) SCC

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (21 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

upon completion of the trial, would necessarily result in conviction.

The limited inquiry is whether, upon consideration of the

prosecution material and the documents forming part of the

record, the learned Trial Court was justified in finding sufficient

grounds for proceeding against the appellants for the offences

charged.

35.The distinction between the stage of framing of charges and

the stage of final adjudication is well settled. At the former stage,

the Court is required to ascertain whether the material, taken at

its face value and considered in its entirety, discloses the

ingredients of the alleged offences and gives rise to a prima facie

case or grave suspicion against the accused. The standard of proof

beyond reasonable doubt, which governs the determination of

guilt at trial, is not to be imported into the consideration of an

application for discharge. In the ratio encapsulated in State of

Bihar v. Ramesh Singh

14

, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained

that, where the material gives rise to a strong suspicion leading

the Court to presume that the accused may have committed the

offence, the framing of a charge is justified. The Court is not

required, at that stage, to meticulously examine the truth,

veracity and ultimate evidentiary value of every circumstance as

would be necessary while recording a finding of guilt. The

aforesaid principle was reiterated and elaborated in the ratio

enunciated in Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of

Investigation

15

, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court delineated

the parameters governing the exercise of jurisdiction under

14 (1977) 4 SCC 39

15 (2010) 9 SCC 368

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (22 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again emphasised that

interference with an order framing charge is warranted only where

the case falls within the recognised parameters justifying such

intervention. The Courts should be cautious against undertaking a

meticulous examination of the evidence or determining, at the

threshold, whether the prosecution is ultimately likely to secure a

conviction. The relevant inquiry is whether the allegations, read

with the material collected during investigation, prima facie

constitute the offences alleged and whether the continuation of

the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

36.The aforesaid principles assume particular relevance in the

present batch of appeals, wherein the appellants have sought to

challenge the evidentiary sufficiency of the prosecution case by

relying upon individual circumstances, including the absence of

their presence in the vehicle at the time of interception, the

absence of recovery from certain premises, the alleged

deficiencies in the location records, the nature of the electronic

material recovered, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged

meetings and activities of the group styled as ‘SUFA’. While each

of these circumstances may be relevant to the final determination

of the case, their ultimate evidentiary effect cannot be

conclusively determined by isolating them from the remaining

material at the stage of framing of charges.

37.It is equally necessary to bear in mind that the Court

exercising jurisdiction at the stage of discharge is neither a mere

conduit for the prosecution's allegations nor a forum for

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (23 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

conducting a premature trial. The record must be examined with

sufficient judicial application of mind to ascertain whether the

essential ingredients of the offences are prima facie disclosed. At

the same time, the Court must refrain from evaluating the

reliability of each witness, undertaking a detailed assessment of

competing inferences, or accepting a defence explanation which

requires evidentiary scrutiny. In the ratio encapsulated in State of

Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi

16

, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

clarified the scope of consideration at the stage of discharge and

the limitations on the material which an accused may seek to

introduce at that stage. The Court is principally concerned with the

prosecution record and the material submitted therewith. The

nature of the allegations and their wider implications.

ADJUDICATION OF THE PRAYERS MADE, AS PER THE

MERITS/DEMERITS OF THE CASE :

38.Turning to the factual matrix, the prosecution case is that the

organisation styled as ‘SUFA’ was formulated by approximately 70

youths in Ratlam. It is alleged that differences arose between

Azjad and Imran Khan- present accused, consequent upon which

they parted ways. The prosecution further alleges that one of the

principal activities of the organisation involved showing ISIS-

related videos to the youth. These allegations form part of the

background against which the subsequent events relied upon by

the prosecution are required to be examined. At this stage, the

Court is not required to record a conclusive finding concerning the

ideological character of the organisation or the ultimate purpose of

16 (2005) 1 SCC 568

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (24 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

the alleged activities; the relevant question is whether the

material collected during investigation, considered as a whole,

provides a legally sufficient basis for proceeding against the

appellants. The prosecution has further relied upon the alleged

meeting conducted on 25.03.2022, during which it was

purportedly decided to collect improvised explosive devices (IEDs)

and transport the same to Jaipur. It is also alleged that videos of

the entire act were intended to be recorded and that videos

relating to the alleged activity were subsequently recovered from

the mobile phone of accused Aakif. These circumstances constitute

an important part of the prosecution narrative, inasmuch as they

are relied upon to connect the alleged activities of the organisation

with the subsequent procurement and proposed transportation of

explosive material.

39.The allegation concerning the proposed transportation of

IEDs to Jaipur cannot, at the present stage, be treated as an

isolated circumstance divorced from the alleged meeting, the

proposed recording of the act and the electronic material stated to

have been recovered during investigation. The cumulative effect of

these circumstances, together with the remaining material forming

part of the prosecution record, is required to be assessed for the

limited purpose of determining whether the charges framed by the

learned Trial Court disclose a legally sustainable basis for

proceeding to trial. The case is not one in which the prosecution

relies solely upon the alleged existence of an organisation or upon

an association between the accused persons. The prosecution

seeks to rely upon a chain of circumstances, comprising the

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (25 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

alleged activities of SUFA, the meeting dated 25.03.2022, the

alleged decision concerning the collection and transportation of

IEDs to Jaipur, the proposed recording of the act, the electronic

material recovered from the mobile phone of accused Aqib, and

the recovery of explosive material from the vehicle intercepted

during the investigation. Whether every link in the said chain will

ultimately be established, and what evidentiary value is to be

attached to each circumstance, are matters to be determined at

trial. At the present stage, however, the material cannot be

assessed by severing each circumstance from the broader factual

context in which the prosecution relies upon it.

40.The allegations, if established, concern the alleged

procurement and transportation of explosive substances in

furtherance of a criminal conspiracy. The use of explosive

substances in the commission of a terrorist act has the potential to

endanger human life, cause widespread injury and destruction,

disrupt public order and threaten the security of the community.

Where the prosecution alleges a concerted plan involving

explosive devices and their proposed transportation to a major

city, the gravity and potential consequences of the alleged conduct

are matters which cannot be disregarded while appreciating the

nature of the prosecution case. The constitutional obligation of the

State to protect the life and security of its citizens is undoubtedly

of paramount importance. Offences involving alleged terrorist

activities and the planned use of explosive substances raise

concerns extending beyond an ordinary dispute between private

individuals. The statutory framework of the UAPA reflects the

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (26 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

legislative determination that activities threatening the

sovereignty, integrity and security of India require a distinct legal

response. Nevertheless, the seriousness of the allegations cannot,

by itself, establish the guilt of any accused. It is the existence of

material satisfying the applicable legal threshold, and not the

mere invocation of national security, which justifies continuation of

the prosecution.

41.Consequently, the national-security dimension of the present

case reinforces the need for a careful and legally disciplined

examination of the prosecution record; it does not dilute the

requirement that the ingredients of the offences charged must be

prima facie disclosed. The Court must neither trivialise allegations

concerning the proposed use of IEDs nor allow the gravity of such

allegations to substitute for the statutory test governing the

framing of charges.

THE INDIVIDUAL ROLES ATTRIBUTED TO THE

APPELLANTS :

42.A further consideration arising in the present batch of

appeals is the contention that the prosecution has not established

the individual involvement of each appellant in the alleged

conspiracy. The appellants have pointed to the fact that they were

not all apprehended from the vehicle in which the explosive

material was allegedly recovered and that no illegal material was

recovered during certain searches conducted at their premises.

They have also questioned the significance of the alleged travel

records, common mobile-phone locations, electronic material and

the alleged participation in meetings or training activities.

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (27 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

43.The Court is conscious that criminal liability is individual and

that the mere association of a person with other accused persons

cannot, without more, establish his participation in a criminal

conspiracy or the commission of a terrorist act. Equally, the

absence of a physical recovery from an individual accused does

not, as an inflexible proposition of law, preclude the prosecution

from relying upon other legally admissible circumstances to

establish the requisite connection with the alleged offences. The

relevance of the absence of recovery, therefore, depends upon the

nature of the charge and the totality of the material relied upon

against the particular accused. In the present case, the

prosecution has relied upon different circumstances against the

respective appellants. Insofar as Aakif Atteq Nahar is concerned,

the grounds of challenge refer to the alleged recording of training

material in his mobile phone and its subsequent transfer to a pen

drive belonging to accused Ameen Pawada, in addition to the

circumstances surrounding his arrest and the search of his

premises. In the case of Mazhar Khan, the challenge concerns,

inter alia, the alleged air tickets, the location material and the

absence of direct recovery. The grounds raised by Imran Khan

include the allegations concerning SUFA, the alleged destruction or

demolition of the poultry farm and house, and the allegation of

police torture.

44.The appeal in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 380/2024 raises

further questions concerning the circumstances of arrest, the

alleged recovery of a pickaxe, the alleged failure to trace

chemicals in the car, the police confessional statement and the

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (28 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

identification referred to in the grounds of appeal. These

circumstances have been noticed to demonstrate that the

challenges raised by the appellants are not identical in every

respect. Nevertheless, the fact that the appeals arise from the

same investigation and involve overlapping allegations permits

their adjudication by a common judgment, provided that the role

attributed to each appellant is assessed separately. The Court

does not proceed on the assumption that the allegations against

one accused automatically establish the guilt of another. Rather,

the question in each appeal is whether the material attributed to

the concerned appellant, considered in the context of the entire

prosecution record, provides sufficient grounds for proceeding with

the charges framed against him.

45.The contention that certain appellants were not present in

the vehicle at the time of its interception does not, by itself,

answer the prosecution allegation of a prior conspiracy. A

conspiracy, by its very nature, may involve different participants

performing different acts at different stages. Its existence and the

participation of a particular accused must be assessed from the

circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, including any

alleged meetings, communications, preparations and subsequent

conduct. Whether the prosecution will ultimately establish the

requisite agreement or common design is a matter for trial; at the

stage of framing charges, the inquiry remains confined to whether

the material gives rise to the requisite prima facie inference.

46.Similarly, the absence of a recovery from the premises of an

accused person, while relevant, is not necessarily decisive where

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (29 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

the prosecution relies upon other material to establish the alleged

participation. The Court must examine whether the remaining

material, if accepted at face value, is capable of supporting the

essential ingredients of the offence. It would be inappropriate at

this stage to treat the absence of a particular category of evidence

as automatically negating all other circumstances relied upon by

the prosecution.

47.In the ratio enunciated in Asim Shariff v. National

Investigation Agency

17

, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered

a challenge to an order refusing discharge in a prosecution

involving offences under the UAPA and other penal provisions. The

Court reiterated that the question at the stage of framing of

charges is whether the material on record discloses a prima facie

case and whether the circumstances give rise to grave suspicion

warranting a trial. The Court cautioned against converting the

discharge proceedings into a detailed evaluation of the evidence or

deciding questions which are properly reserved for trial. The

principles enunciated therein are directly relevant to the nature of

the challenge raised in the present appeals.

48.The appellants have questioned the evidentiary value of the

electronic material, the alleged travel records and the location

information relied upon by the prosecution. Such objections

cannot be rejected merely because the prosecution has referred to

electronic material in the charge-sheet. The Court must remain

satisfied that the material, as presented in the prosecution record,

is relevant to the alleged offences and is capable of supporting the

17 (2019) 7 SCC 148

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (30 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

inference sought to be drawn against the concerned accused. At

the same time, questions concerning the authenticity,

admissibility, reliability and ultimate probative value of such

material must be considered in accordance with law and, where

they require evidentiary examination, at the appropriate stage of

the trial.

49.The prosecution's reliance upon videos allegedly recovered

from the mobile phone of accused Aaki f assumes significance

because the videos are stated to relate to the proposed recording

of the act concerning the collection and transportation of IEDs.

The appellants' challenge to the significance of such material

cannot be finally resolved merely by considering whether a

particular video, viewed in isolation, conclusively proves an

offence. The relevant inquiry at the present stage is whether the

electronic material, read with the remaining circumstances relied

upon by the prosecution, is capable of supporting the allegations

forming the basis of the charges.

50.The Court is not unmindful of the distinction between the

existence of an electronic record and the inference which may

lawfully be drawn from it. The prosecution must establish the

relevant foundational facts and satisfy the applicable requirements

of admissibility and proof. The present observations, however, do

not determine the admissibility of any particular electronic record

or dispense with the prosecution's obligation to prove its case in

accordance with law. They are confined to the conclusion that the

ultimate evidentiary worth of the material cannot be conclusively

determined in the present proceedings unless the challenge

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (31 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

demonstrates a fundamental legal defect or an absence of

material sufficient to sustain the charge.

THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK AND THE GRAVITY OF THE

ALLEGED OFFENCES :

51.The offences alleged against the appellants arise under

multiple statutory enactments, including the Explosive Substances

Act, 1908, the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The

prosecution alleges not merely the possession or recovery of

explosive material but circumstances indicative of a wider

conspiracy involving the alleged collection and transportation of

IEDs. The applicability of the respective statutory provisions must,

of course, depend upon the ingredients of each offence and the

material relied upon against each appellant.

52.In National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad

Shah Watali

18

, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the

statutory framework governing bail under the UAPA and

emphasised the importance of examining the prosecution material

in the context of the special legislative provisions applicable to

terrorist offences. The decision arose in the context of the

statutory restrictions on the grant of bail and is not to be treated

as prescribing an identical test for framing charges. Nevertheless,

it underscores that proceedings involving alleged terrorist

activities must be considered within the applicable statutory

framework, rather than by disregarding the nature of the offences

alleged. The ultimate question in the present appeals continues to

be governed by the principles applicable to discharge and framing

18 (2019) 5 SCC 1

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (32 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

of charges. The seriousness of the alleged conduct is relevant to

understanding the nature of the prosecution case, particularly

where the allegations concern explosive substances, an alleged

conspiracy and a proposed act in Jaipur. However, the Court

reiterates that the seriousness of an offence cannot relieve the

prosecution of its obligation to establish the case through legally

admissible evidence. Nor can the national-security implications of

the allegations justify the continuation of a charge where the

statutory ingredients are wholly absent. The present appeals must

therefore be decided on the basis of the applicable legal threshold

and the material forming part of the record.

53.It has been submitted on behalf of the prosecution that a

supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 28.11.2023, following

further investigation. The supplementary charge-sheet forms part

of the procedural history of the case and the material contained

therein must be considered to the extent it forms part of the

record relevant to the impugned orders. The mere filing of a

supplementary charge-sheet does not, by itself, establish the truth

of the allegations; equally, its filing cannot be disregarded where

the material contained therein is relevant to the issues arising in

the appeals. The prosecution has also referred to the dismissal of

bail applications by the High Court vide orders dated 21.01.2023

and 16.08.2023, and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order

dated 18.01.2024. The said orders form part of the procedural

background placed before the Court. However, the determination

of a bail application and the determination of whether charges

should be framed are distinct exercises governed by their

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (33 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

respective legal standards. The dismissal of bail applications

cannot, by itself, be treated as proof of guilt or as conclusive

validation of the impugned order framing charges.

54.A significant aspect of the present proceedings is that the

appellants have challenged an order framing charges, whereas the

trial has not yet culminated in a final judgment. The Court

considers it necessary to emphasise that the stage of framing

charges is preliminary to the recording and appreciation of

evidence at trial. The appellants will have the opportunity, in

accordance with law, to challenge the prosecution evidence

through cross-examination, raise objections to admissibility where

legally permissible, and advance their defence at the appropriate

stage. The pendency of the trial does not, by itself, furnish a

ground either to dismiss the present appeals or to uphold the

impugned order. Equally, the fact that the trial has not concluded

cannot justify the premature determination of disputed questions

of fact in favour of either side. The relevant consideration is

whether the learned Trial Court correctly applied the threshold for

framing charges on the material then available before it. Where

the material discloses the essential ingredients of the offences and

raises grave suspicion against the accused, the proper course is

ordinarily to permit the trial to proceed, leaving the final

determination of guilt to be made upon completion of the

evidentiary process.

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (34 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

WHETHER THE IMPUGNED ORDER WARRANTS

INTERFERENCE :

55.Having considered the grounds raised by the appellants and

the prosecution's response, this Court finds that the principal

challenge is directed towards the interpretation, sufficiency and

evidentiary significance of the material collected during

investigation. The appellants have sought to rely upon the

absence of direct recovery in certain cases, the circumstances

surrounding the interception of the vehicle, the alleged

deficiencies in the location and travel records, the alleged

electronic material and the individual circumstances of arrest.

These matters are relevant to the prosecution case; however, their

ultimate effect cannot be conclusively determined by undertaking

a piecemeal evaluation of the evidence at the present stage. The

prosecution, on the other hand, relies upon the cumulative

circumstances concerning the alleged formation and activities of

SUFA, the showing of ISIS-related videos to the youth, the alleged

meeting dated 25.03.2022, the decision to collect IEDs and

transport the same to Jaipur, the proposed recording of the act,

the videos allegedly recovered from accused Aakif’s mobile phone,

and the further material collected during investigation. It is upon

this cumulative factual foundation that the prosecution seeks to

sustain the charges framed against the appellants.

56.The Court is of the considered view that the question is not

whether each circumstance, taken independently, is sufficient to

establish the guilt of an appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The

inquiry is whether the material attributed to the concerned

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (35 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

appellant, considered alongside the remaining relevant material,

gives rise to the requisite prima facie case or grave suspicion in

respect of the offences charged. The ultimate truth of the

allegations, the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the

admissibility and probative value of the electronic material, and

the competing inferences sought to be drawn from the

circumstances are matters which must be determined in

accordance with law during trial.

57.The allegations concerning the proposed collection and

transportation of IEDs to Jaipur, if established, involve conduct of

a grave nature with potentially serious consequences for public

safety and national security. The Court cannot, however, permit

the gravity of the allegations to supplant the legal test governing

the framing of charges. Having applied that test to the nature of

the grounds raised and the prosecution case as presented, this

Court finds no demonstrated basis in the present appeals to

undertake a detailed reassessment of the evidence or to substitute

a final determination on disputed facts for the trial process. It is

also relevant that the learned Trial Court has discharged certain

accused persons from specific offences while proceeding to frame

charges under other provisions. The impugned order thus reflects

a consideration of the applications for discharge with reference to

the offences and material placed before the Court. The fact that

certain charges were not sustained against an accused does not,

by itself, render the remaining charges legally untenable. Each

charge must be assessed in the light of its statutory ingredients

and the material relied upon in support thereof. In the absence of

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (36 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

a demonstrated legal bar or a clear failure of the material to

disclose the essential ingredients of the offences charged, the

Court is not persuaded that interference with the impugned order

is warranted.

58.It is clarified that the aforesaid observations are confined to

the limited purpose of determining the validity of the order

framing charges. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an

expression of opinion on the ultimate guilt or innocence of any

appellant. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the trial

independently, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any

observation herein which is not necessary for deciding the present

appeals.

CONCLUSION :

59.For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court finds no

sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order dated

31.07.2024, insofar as it has been challenged by the appellants in

the present batch of appeals. The material and circumstances

relied upon by the prosecution, as presented for consideration at

this stage, do not warrant the premature termination of the

criminal proceedings by way of discharge.

60.Consequently, the present appeals are dismissed. The

impugned order dated 31.07.2024 is upheld to the extent

challenged in the respective appeals. The learned Trial Court is

directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law and

endeavour to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, subject to

the applicable procedural requirements and without being

influenced by the observations made herein. It is reiterated that

[2026:RJ-JP:41947-DB] (37 of 37) [CRLAD-266/2024]

the dismissal of the present appeals shall not be construed as a

finding of guilt against any appellant. All questions concerning the

admissibility, reliability and evidentiary value of the prosecution

material, as well as the ultimate determination of the charges,

shall remain open for adjudication by the learned Trial Court in

accordance with law.

61.Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

62.A copy of the present judgment be placed in the connected

appeals.

(SAMEER JAIN),J (SANJAY K. AGRAWAL),CJ

DEEPAK/