IMRAN YUSUFBHAI NAYANIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.RA/1328/2025                             ORDER DATED: 27/03/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
            SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 1328 of 2025
==========================================================
                         IMRAN YUSUFBHAI NAYANI
                                  Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAT POPAT for MR YASH J PATEL(11240) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                             Date : 27/03/2026

                                 ORDER


1.     By way of this application, the applicant has challenged the

       order dated 5.10.2024 below Exhs.16 and 17 passed by the

       learned 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad

       (Rural) in Sessions Case no. 170 of 2021 rejecting the prayer

       of discharge, wherein the offence has been registered under

       Sections 379, 285, 308, 120(b), 114 and 411 of the Indian

       Penal Code, 1860 as well as Sections 15(2), 15(4), 16A of the

       Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User

       in Land) Amendment Act, 2011 and Sections 3 and 4 of

       Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.


2.     Learned advocate Mr. Chitan Popat along with learned

       advocate Mr. Yash Patel for the applicant submitted that


                                 Page 1 of 4
     R/CR.RA/1328/2025                          ORDER DATED: 27/03/2026




       taking into consideration the facts of the case, the present

       applicant could not be charged Sections 379, 285, 308,

       120(b), 114 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and no

       provisions under Sections 15(2), 15(4), 16A of the Petroleum

       and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land)

       Amendment Act, 2011 and Sections 3 and 4 of Damage to

       Public Property Act, 1984 could be invoked against the

       applicant. Learned advocate Mr. Popat submitted that twice,

       Panchnama was drawn, on 10.2.2021 and 22.2.2021, where

       two contrary reports are on record and the material which

       was collected earlier in point of time should be made the base

       for the report and thus, it is stated that the applicant was

       required to be discharged from the offence.


3.     Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned APP for the State has submitted

       that the learned Judge has recorded the arguments of the

       advocates at length and has given reasons for rejecting the

       application and hence, submitted that there is no merit in the

       present application.


4.     It appears that the provision under Section 226 of the Code of

       Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”

       for short) has not been followed by the Public Prosecutor to

       open the case, where through the provision, it requires that


                               Page 2 of 4
     R/CR.RA/1328/2025                           ORDER DATED: 27/03/2026




       when the accused appears or is brought before the Court in

       pursuant of the commitment of the case under Section 209,

       Public Prosecutor shall have to open his case by describing the

       charge brought against the accused and by stating what

       evidence he proposes to lead to prove the guilt of the

       accused. The provision under Section 226 of the Cr.P.C. is

       mandatory in nature. The learned Judge is not a mere post

       office to frame the charge, but has to exercise the judicial

       mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether

       the case for trial has been made out by the prosecution.


5.     After the accused is brought before the Court or appears

       before the Court, it becomes necessary for the Public

       Prosecutor to open the case and to produce all the documents

       on which the reliance would be placed to prove the guilt of the

       accused. That stage gives the liberty to the accused to resist

       and to even have the knowledge of the material against him.

       The learned Judge has not referred in the impugned order of

       having directed the Public Prosecutor to adopt the procedure

       as mandated under Section 226 of the Cr.P.C.


6.     In the circumstances, let the Trial Court list the matter under

       Section 226 of the Cr.P.C. and direct the Public Prosecutor to

       open the case by describing the charge against the accused as


                               Page 3 of 4
       R/CR.RA/1328/2025                                                           ORDER DATED: 27/03/2026




          well as the evidence, which he proposes to place on record to

          prove the guilt of the accused. The learned Trial Court Judge

          is also directed that at that stage, the accused be granted an

          opportunity of hearing along with the Public Prosecutor.


7.        Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of, with

          specific directions to the learned Judge that the observations

          made in the impugned order should not prejudice rights of

          any of the parties and the applicant, if necessary, has the

          liberty to prefer an application afresh under Section 227 of the

          Cr.P.C.



                                                                                                (GITA GOPI,J)
          Maulik


     Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
     Digitally signed by: MAULIK RAJESH PANDYA(HC00205), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 27/03/2026 18:23:49




                                                     Page 4 of 4