-
by Admin
18 December 2025 9:13 AM
“Only prima facie evidence is required at the stage of framing of charge. A detailed scrutiny is not warranted” – In a significant ruling on the evidentiary threshold required at the stage of framing of charges, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a criminal revision filed by Gurmeet Singh Gill alias Gurmeet Singh Bukkanwal, who had challenged the trial court’s order refusing to discharge him and framing charges under serious offences including attempt to murder, rioting, and criminal conspiracy. The petitioner had sought discharge on the ground that he was already in preventive police custody under the National Security Act (NSA) on the day of the alleged mob attack at Police Station Ajnala.
Justice Surya Partap Singh upheld the trial court’s decision, holding that the existence of direct police witness testimonies identifying the petitioner as part of the violent mob was sufficient to proceed with charges, and the alleged alibi required trial-stage adjudication.
“Presence of eye-witness statements under Section 161 CrPC is enough to frame charges — Probative value not to be assessed at this stage”
Rejecting the petitioner’s arguments that his preventive detention under the NSA on the day of the incident clearly ruled out his involvement, the Court referred to the statements of SI Satnam Singh and MHC Shubegh Singh, recorded under Section 161 CrPC, both of whom had categorically identified the petitioner as a participant in the attack.
Justice Singh noted: “A perusal of the statements of SI Satnam Singh and MHC Shubegh Singh shows that the petitioner was a member of the mob which was responsible for the attack on Police Station Ajnala. Prima facie it stands proved that there is evidence against the petitioner to the effect that he was present on the spot at the time of occurrence.”
The Court reaffirmed the settled legal position that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court is only required to determine whether a prima facie case exists. It is not the stage to assess the veracity, sufficiency, or probative strength of evidence.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Soma Chakravarty v. State, (2007) 5 SCC 403, the Court observed:“When there is material to show that the accused might have committed the offence, the Court can frame charges. The probative value of the material cannot be examined at that stage.”
Petitioner’s NSA Detention Not Sufficient To Displace Prima Facie Evidence
The petitioner had argued that he had been picked up and detained by police on the night of 23.02.2023 – the very date of the Ajnala incident – and taken to Police Station Talwandi Bhai, District Ferozepur, before later being flown to Dibrugarh Jail in Assam under NSA detention. It was further claimed that an officer present during NSA proceedings before the Advisory Board had admitted this timeline.
However, the Court held that such a defence cannot be conclusively accepted or verified at the charge-framing stage, especially in the face of specific eye-witness allegations.
Justice Singh remarked: “To prove the above-mentioned plea, at this stage, neither an opportunity can be given to the petitioner, nor any such evidence contrary to the statements of SI Satnam Singh and MHC Shubegh Singh is available on record.”
Trial Court’s Observation About Petitioner’s Absence From Spot Held “Erroneous” But Not Fatal
Interestingly, the High Court also addressed a controversial observation made by the trial court that the Public Prosecutor had admitted the petitioner was not at the scene during the incident. The State, however, strongly refuted this in the revision proceedings, terming it a misrecording, and even moved a separate petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to expunge the trial court’s remarks.
Clarifying the position, the High Court stated: “This observation by the learned trial Court that admittedly the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of occurrence, is erroneous. However, this finding does not warrant the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.”
The Court emphasized that even if the trial court’s remark was incorrect, the availability of prima facie evidence—specifically the police officers’ eye-witness accounts—was sufficient basis to proceed to trial.
State’s Alleged Malafides and Political Targeting Claims to Be Tested at Trial
While the petitioner alleged political vendetta and misuse of State machinery, arguing that he was targeted to manufacture public perception and detained under NSA without lawful cause, the High Court held that such questions involve factual adjudication and cross-examination, which cannot be addressed at the preliminary stage.
“At this stage, the petitioner's allegations of malafide intention on part of the State and alleged false implication are matters of defence, not discharge. They require scrutiny of evidence during trial,” the Court clarified.
Charges Framed Under Serious IPC and Arms Act Offences
The trial court had framed charges against the petitioner under the following provisions:
IPC Sections: 307 (attempt to murder), 353 (assault on public servant), 186, 332, 333 (causing hurt to deter public servant), 506 (second part - criminal intimidation), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 427 (mischief), 148 (rioting), 149 (unlawful assembly), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence)
Arms Act Sections: 25 and 27 (illegal possession and use of firearms)
The High Court found no illegality in the trial court’s order and refused to interfere under its revisional jurisdiction.
Petition Dismissed, Charges to Stand
Concluding that the revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to test the sufficiency or reliability of prosecution evidence at the charge-framing stage, the Court upheld the impugned order.
“A right decision has been taken by the learned trial Court while dismissing the application moved by the petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and giving a direction to frame charges. The present petition is hereby dismissed accordingly,” Justice Singh held.
Date of Decision: 15.12.2025
