Due Process Denied: Allahabad HC Rules Against Precipitate Framing of Charges under BNSS

In a significant ruling emphasizing procedural fairness under the recently enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Allahabad High Court has underscored that the framing of charges is not a mere routine formality. Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra set aside an order by a Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Customs) , ruling that the trial court failed to provide the accused with a mandated opportunity to seek discharge, thereby vitiating the trial process.

The Fraudulent "Banana Plant" Scheme

The legal dispute originated from an FIR lodged in June 2025 at Police Station Gosainganj , Lucknow. The complainant alleged he was defrauded of Rs. 29.25 lakh by an unknown fraudster who posed as a seller of banana plants via social media, using forged DBT certificates to gain trust. The investigation implicated the revisionist, Kallayya Pattadamath, alleging he had facilitated connections between the primary accused and various bank account holders used to siphon the funds.

The Procedural Lapse

The revisionist challenged the Magistrate's order dated January 3, 2026, which framed charges without allowing the accused an opportunity to file, or even consider, a discharge application. The crux of the revisionist's argument, supported by counsel Abhineet Jaiswal and Devvrat Pratap Singh, was that the trial court ignored the explicit statutory requirements now enshrined in Sections 262 and 263 of the BNSS .

Under the new code, the legislature has introduced specific protections—including a 60-day window for filing discharge applications and a corresponding requirement for the court to hear the accused on the question of discharge before moving to frame charges.

A Safeguard Against Unnecessary Harassment

The High Court drew sharp parallels between the old CrPC provisions and the current BNSS framework. Justice Mishra noted that the law is designed as a safeguard to prevent individuals from facing the trauma and harassment of a full trial when allegations are groundless.

"The intent of the legislature is very clear that the procedure prescribed... for discharge of the accused is in fact a safeguard so that a person who has been alleged to have committed an offence, may not be harassed for facing trial proceedings," the court observed.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies that legal compliance is not optional. Key excerpts from the ruling include:

• "Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all."
• "The framing of charge in the present case stands vitiated due to non-compliance of the statutory provisions contained in Sections 262 and 263 of the BNSS ."
• "Application of mind on discharge as well as assigning of reasons for refusing order... is of a much importance."
• "The accused-revisionist was languishing in judicial custody and no opportunity was provided to him to move an application for discharge."

The Road Ahead

By allowing the revision, the Allahabad High Court has remanded the matter back to the trial court. The Magistrate is now directed to allow the revisionist two weeks to submit a discharge application. Following this, the trial court must provide both the prosecution and the accused a fair hearing and issue a reasoned, speaking order regarding whether charges should genuinely proceed.

This decision serves as a stern reminder to trial courts that the transition to the BNSS is not merely a name change in law, but a renewed commitment to upholding the statutory rights of the accused at every stage of the criminal judicial process.