Insufficient prima facie evidence against an accused is grounds for discharge under Section 239 of the CrPC, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence over mere suspicion.

JUDGMENT :

(ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL, J.)

This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the Court of Sub Judge I -cum- ACJM I -cum- Assistant District Sessions Judge II, Patna in EOU PS Case No 20 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the learned Court below allowed the application filed by the opposite party under Section 239 of the Cr P C and discharged him from the said case which has been instituted for the alleges offence punishable under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 120B of the IPC, Section 66 of the IT Act and Sections 3 /10 of the Bihar Examination Control Act .

2 Facts of the case are that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons alleging therein that on 08.05.2022, the 67^th BPSC Examination was being conducted across various centers in the State of Bihar. It is stated that an information was received that question paper has gone viral on social media even before the examination started. It was further informed that the candidates at the examination center falling in Veer Kunwar Singh College, Bhojpur at Ara boycotted the examination. The pictures of question paper and OMR sheet were made viral. It was further stated that copy of the question paper has also been sent to the Controller of Examination of BPSC.

3 On the basis of said complaint, FIR was lodged against unknown group for making the question paper viral before the examination. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the opposite party and other accused persons for the alleged offence, as mentioned hereinabove.

4 On the basis of the statement of the co-accused Shakti Kumar, Awinash Kumar, it was found that the opposite party was also involved in the alleged crime. He was in constant touch with the co-accused Shakti Kumar, Manoj Kumar, Awinash Kumar and Rajesh Kumar. It was further found that in order to destroy the evidence, the opposite party also broke his mobile phone handset which was used by him on the date of incident, i e, 08.05.2022.

5 After submission of charge sheet, an application under Section 239 of the Cr P C has been filed by the opposite party before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court, initially, vide order dated 29.03.2023, rejected the said application filed by the opposite party. The order dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure 6) has been assailed by the opposite party before this Court. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr Misc No 9757 of 2023, vide its order dated 12.05.2023, allowed the petition and remitted back the matter to the Court below with a direction to consider the discharge application of the opposite party afresh. After hearing the counsel for both the parties, it was observed by the coordinate Bench in the said order that while rejecting the application, the learned Court below has acted as a mere post office and has not applied its mind to the grounds raised in the discharge petition. Thereafter, the learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned order dated 19.07.2023 and discharged the opposite party. Hence, this revision petition has been preferred.

6 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Court below, while passing the impugned order, has not appreciated the facts in correct perspective and according to the counsel, there are enough materials against the opposite party to make a very strong and grave suspicion of guilt and the materials are, thus, sufficient to proceed against him. According to the counsel, the learned Court below ought not to have allowed the discharge application of the opposite party. Relying on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal -Versus- Anil Kumar Bhunja & Others (1979) 4 SCC 279 and the State of Delhi -Versus- Gyan Devi and Others (2000) 8 SCC 239, it is submitted by the counsel that at the stage of framing of charges, the Magistrate has to see whether the facts alleged and sought