Patna High Court
Hargun Kumar Tripathi @ Hargun TripathiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
At the discharge stage the court may only examine whether the material collected during investigation prima facie establishes the offence and cannot consider the accused’s defence or alleged procedural lapses; therefore, the order of the Judicial Magistrate was not illegal.
Summary
Hargun Kumar Tripathi filed a petition in the Patna High Court seeking to quash the order dated 26‑09‑2025 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bettiah, which had dismissed his earlier application for discharge under Section 262 of the B.N.S.S. on the ground of alleged offences under Sections 25(1‑b)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. The petitioner alleged that he was falsely implicated by his brother in a property dispute, that the police failed to video‑record the search and seizure as mandated by the Supreme Court, and that no sanction from the District Magistrate was obtained before filing the charge‑sheet. The learned High Court examined whether such alleged procedural irregularities could be raised at the discharge stage. It held that at the stage of discharge the court’s role is limited to assessing whether the material collected during investigation prima facie establishes the offence, and not to entertain the accused’s defence or allegations of police misconduct. Consequently, the High Court found no illegality in the lower court’s order and dismissed the quashing application.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash the order of the Judicial Magistrate dismissing the discharge petition on the ground of alleged procedural irregularities in the investigation.
- Whether allegations of false implication, lack of video‑recorded search, and absence of sanction under the Arms Act can be considered at the discharge stage.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)(a), 26, 35
- B.N.S.S. — s. 262
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 239
Subjects
- quash
- discharge petition
- Arms Act
- procedural irregularities
- video‑recorded search
- sanction requirement
- property dispute
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2024 Thana- SIRISIYA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Hargun Kumar Tripathi @ Hargun Tripathi Son of Hajari Prasad Tripathi @
Hajari Tiwari R/o - Turahapatti, P.S. - Sirisiya, Dist. - West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhannjay Kumar No 2, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Raj Ballabh Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 12-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner has made the following prayer in this
application :-
“ That this application is being filed to
quash the order dated 26.09.2025
passed in Sirisiya P.S. Case No.
63/2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate
First Class Bettiah West Champaran
whereby and whereunder the learned
Court has dismissed the petition dated
05.03.2025 which is filed by the
petitioner u/s 262 of the B.N.S.S. for
discharge u/s 25(1-b)(a), 26 and 35 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64 of 2026(2) dt.12-01-2026
2/4
the Arms Act, the learned court has
refused to discharge the petitioner”.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It has further
been submitted that the petitioner is not living in the house from
where the said recovery has been made in fact it happens to be a
joint family house and the petitioner has left the same way back.
It has further been submitted that his brother in collusion with
the police falsely implicated the petitioner in the present case.
Learned counsel has further submitted that the police had not
followed the directive of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein
the search and seizure should have been video photographed
and the same has not been done. It has further been submitted
that police has mechanically submitted the charge-sheet without
any such evidence of search and seizure. Learned counsel has
further submitted that as per the Arms Act, it is mandatory to
obtain sanction before submitting the charge-sheet. However,
during investigation, the I.O. has not taken any sanction from
the District Magistrate before submitting the charge-sheet. It has
further been submitted that there is a Partition Suit bering
191/2024 pending between the petitioner and his brother and in
order to settle the same and coerce the petitioner into
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64 of 2026(2) dt.12-01-2026
3/4
compromising the same, the present false and concocted case
has been lodged. Learned counsel has further submitted that the
learned trial court has failed to appreciate such facts and
circumstances and has dismissed the petition filed under Section
239 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner praying therein to
discharge him from the same and the offences as alleged in the
charge-sheet.
4. Considering the submission made on behalf of the
parties, this court finds that the petitioner has prayed therein that
there has been some irregularities committed during the
investigation and more over it is the defense of the petitioner
that the petitioner and his brother were at loggerheads on
account of some property dispute for which the title suit is also
pending and at the behest of his brother, the police falsely
implicated the petitioner in this case. It is a settled law that
during discharge, the court has only to see and hold that the
evidence collected during the course of investigation goes on to
show the offences are made out against the petitioner and it is
not a stage where the defense of the accused/ petitioner would
be looked into.
5. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in
the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate First
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64 of 2026(2) dt.12-01-2026
4/4
Class, Bettiah, West Champaran. Accordingly, the present
quashing application stands dismissed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Gautam/-
U T
Checking your session…