Disposed¶23

Sk. Ajhar v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 Jul 2026CRLREV/227/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Discharge rejected; Section 250 BNSS 2023; framing of charge; criminal revision CRLREV 227/2026; BNS 2023 ss.191(2)/191(3)/281/303(2)/317(2)/109(1)/221/190; Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 s.11(1)(d); Arms Act 1959 s.25; Ghatgaon P.S. Case No.345 of 2025; S.T. Case No.16/150 of 2025; Special Judge (Vigilance) Keonjhar; police personnel witnesses; alleged exaggerated allegations; no detailed scrutiny of materials at charge-framing stage; no interference; complicity left to trial.

What did the court decide?

On going through the materials on record prima facie, the Court finds no infirmity in the exercise of jurisdiction and no perversity in the appreciation of the materials by the learned Trial Court so as to warrant interference in the revision. ¶20

Sk. Ajhar Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the learned Trial Court rejecting the Petitioners' discharge application under Section 250 of BNSS, 2023 warrants interference in this Criminal Revision.

¶20

Court's answer

¶20

Key takeaways

The Court has not expressed any view regarding complicity of the Petitioners; the same is to be established in an independent manner in the trial.obiter¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (CRLREV No.227 of 2026, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, V. Narasingh, J., order dated 08.07.2026) assailed the order dated 09.02.2026 of the Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar in S.T. Case No.16/150 of 2025 (arising out of Ghatgaon P.S. Case No.345 of 2025) rejecting the Petitioners' discharge application under Section 250 of BNSS, 2023. Petitioners stand accused of offences under Sections 191(2)/ 191(3)/ 281/ 303(2)/ 317(2)/ 109(1)/ 221/ 190 of BNS, 2023 read with Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Petitioners' counsel urged that the Arms Act charge had been withdrawn for want of seizure, that the remaining accusations deserved similar treatment, and that police-personnel witnesses had made exaggerated allegations; the State relied on the statements of charge sheeted witnesses and contended that detailed scrutiny of materials is impermissible at the stage of framing of charge. Held: no infirmity in the exercise of jurisdiction nor perversity in appreciation of materials by the learned Trial Court warranting revisional interference; the Court expressed no view on the Petitioners' complicity, which is to be established independently at trial. Revision disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No.227 of 2026

¶3

1. Sk. Ajhar 2. Sk. Miraj Hussen @ Sk. Miraj Hosen 3. Sk. Abbas

¶4

Petitioners

¶5

Mr. P.S. Das, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha

¶8

…. Opposite Party

¶9

Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER

¶11

08.07.2026

¶12

Order No.

¶13

03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

¶14

The Petitioners are accused of commission of offence punishable under Sections 191(2)/ 191(3)/ 281/ 303(2)/ 317(2)/ 109(1)/ 221/ 190 of BNS, 2023 read with section 11(1)(d) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and 25 of Arms Act, 1959.

¶15

Assailing the order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Keonjhar in S.T. Case No.16/150 of 2025 arising out of Ghatgaon P.S. Case No.345 of 2025 rejecting the prayer of the Petitioners under Section

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

250 of BNSS, 2023 for discharge, this Criminal Revision has been filed.

¶18

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that initially the F.I.R was registered, inter alia, under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 and since there was no seizure under the said Act, the same charge was withdrawn, it is the submission that the accusation in respect of the other offences, inter alia, under Section 109 of BNSS ought to be seen in the same light and, as such, no credence can be attached to the case of the prosecution and since the witnesses are all the police personnel, exaggerated allegations have been made.

¶19

Learned counsel for the State opposes such submission and relying upon the statements of the charge sheeted witnesses, submits that the matter does not merit interference in this revision and more so since at the stage of framing of charge, it is not permissible for this Court to make a detailed scrutiny of materials on record.

¶20

On going through the materials on record prima facie, this Court does not find any infirmity in the exercise of jurisdiction or any perversity in the appreciation of the materials on record by the learned Trial Court so as to warrant interference the revision.

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

It is needless to state that this Court has not expressed any view regarding complicity of the Petitioners, the same is to be established in an independent manner, in the trial.

¶23