AJIT LAKHMICHAND BOTHRAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:38640


                                                                           66.26revn
                                                  (1)

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      15 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 66 OF 2026

                                    AJIT LAKHMICHAND BOTHRA
                                              VERSUS
                                    THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                      RATAN SUMANT GAIKWAD
                                                  …..
                 Mr P. R. Katneshwarkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr Anuj Fulfagar
                 Advocate for Applicant
                 Mr S. G. Sangle, APP for Respondent No.1
                 Mr Harshvardhan A. Karad, Advocate h/f Mr A. V. Hon, Advocate for
                 respondent No.2
                                                 …..
                                          CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                             DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2026

                 P. C. :


                 1.          Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr Katneshwarkar for the

                 applicant, learned APP Mr Sangle for respondent No.1/State and

                 learned Advocate Mr Karad holding for Advocate Mr Hon for

                 respondent No.2.


                 2.          The applicant is challenging the impugned order dated

                 09/01/2026, passed below Exhibit 4 in Sessions Case No.225/2022 by

                 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, wherein the

                 application filed by him under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal

                 Procedure for discharge came to be rejected.
                                                            66.26revn
                                 (2)

3.          According to the prosecution, on 12/11/2017, in between

5.00 to 5.30 p.m., when the informant/Ratan Gaikwad was going in his

Auto Rickshaw from Professor Colony to Premdan Chowk, he saw one

Akash Auti alongwith other unknown men and women. He, therefore,

called his family members there. At that time 4-5 persons came there.

Said Akash Auti assaulted the informant with hands and another

person also assaulted him with blows of kicks and fists. Thereafter,

informant went to some unknown persons and told them that the

dispute took place on account of plot owned by them. The accused

persons assaulted the informant with stone and blows of kicks and

fists. 3They also assaulted his wife, namely, Rajashri, sister Savita

Dilip Padale and niece Shubham Sharad Gaikwad.            They also

threatened them to kill. One of the accused disclosed the informant

that present applicant/accused Bothara sent them to beat and give

threat to them. Therefore, informant lodged report to the Police

Station, Tophkhana bearing FIR No.I-473/2017. The accused persons

came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 324,

323, 143, 147, 149, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.


4.          There were almost 8 accused persons. Present applicant is

applicant No.8 against whom the allegations are that he had sent the

aforesaid accused    persons at the spot to commit crime.      After
                                                              66.26revn
                                   (3)

registering offence, the Investigating Officer completed investigation

and filed charge-sheet against all the accused persons for offence

punishable under aforesaid Sections.


5.           After filing of charge-sheet, the applicant had preferred

the application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

for his discharge, which came to be rejected by the impugned order

dated 09/01/2022. Being aggrieved of the said order, the applicant has

filed this revision application.


6.           Mr Katneshwarkar, learned Senior Advocate for the

applicant submits that the impugned judgment is illegal, perverse and

shows non application of mind. According to him, the applicant has

not committed any crime and he has been falsely implicated in this

crime. He submits that, the applicant at all cannot be said to be

involved in this crime as he was not present on the spot, where the

incident took place. He further submits that there was civil dispute on

account of immovable property between applicant and informant, and

therefore, the applicant has been falsely implicated. He further states

that contents of FIR do not show that applicant is related to other

accused persons, and thus, he is not part of the alleged incident.

According to him, there are no allegations against the applicant, and
                                                                 66.26revn
                                   (4)

there is no incriminating material against him, and as such, the

applicant cannot be made to suffer from the agony of trial. He then

submits that in one paragraph of 5-6 lines, the learned Sessions Judge

decided the application for discharge. He, therefore, submits that the

impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside and therefore, he

prays for allowing the present revision application.


7.           Learned Senior Advocate, in support of his submissions,

relies upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

matter of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another,

(1979) 3 Supreme Court Cases 4.


8.           Per contra, learned APP Mr Sangle and learned Advocate

Mr Karad for the complainant strongly opposed the application. They

submit that there is sufficient material against the applicant/accused in

the charge-sheet and the impugned order passed by learned Sessions

Judge is correct, proper and requires no interference of this Court.

They, therefore, prays for dismissal of the instant revision application.


9.           After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned

Advocates for the respective sides, I have gone through the record

available with the Court. Perusal of the contents of the impugned

order passed by the learned Sessions Judge shows that, in one
                                                               66.26revn
                                   (5)

paragraph of 5-6 lines, the application for discharge came to be

decided. Learned Sessions Judge observed in the said order that the

charge-sheet against the applicant/accused discloses committal of the

offence under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code with other

sections. By observing by the learned Session Judge that, role of the

accused cannot be segregated and mere submission that the presence

of applicant is not found as per the FIR, is not sufficient to discharge

the applicant, the application for discharge came to be dismissed. In

my opinion, learned Sessions Judge failed to give proper reasoning for

rejecting such application.


10.            The learned Senior Advocate rightly relied upon the

judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India

(supra), in paragraph No.10 of which, it is observed thus :-

         “10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned
         above, the following principles emerge :

         (i)     That the Judge while considering the question of
                 framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code
                 has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the
                 evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether
                 or not a prima facie case against the accused has been
                 made out.
         (ii)    Where the materials placed before the Court disclose
                 grave suspicion against the accused which has not
                 been properly explained the Court will be fully
                                                                 66.26revn
                                   (6)

                 justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the
                 trial.
         (iii)   The test to determine a prima facie case would
                 naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is
                 difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By
                 and large however if two views are equally possible
                 and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced
                 before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not
                 grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully
                 within his right to discharge the accused.
         (iv)    That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227
                 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is
                 a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a
                 post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has
                 to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the
                 total effect of the evidence and the documents
                 produced before the Court, any basic infirmities
                 appearing in the case and so on. This however does
                 not mean that the judge should make a roving enquiry
                 into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the
                 evidence as if he was conducting a trial.”


11.          In pursuance of above said guidelines, it appears that

learned Sessions Court decided the application for discharge in a

mechanical manner. Hence, this matter is required to be sent back to

decided afresh to the learned Sessions Judge.


12.          In view of above, this matter is remitted back to the

learned Sessions Court for deciding afresh. The parties are directed to
                                                               66.26revn
                                  (7)

appear and argue the matter before the learned Sessions Court on

07/09/2026. Learned Sessions Court to decide the application afresh.


13.          This revision application is disposed of in above terms.


14.          This Court vide order dated 24/03/2026, has granted

interim relief, thereby staying the proceedings against the present

applicant.   The said order be continued till the disposal of the

application by the learned Sessions Court.




                                    [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]
sjk