IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 618 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL ================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No √

================================================

TUSHAR PRAKASHCHANDRA MODI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

================================================

Appearance:

MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR SHEGUN B CHOKSHI(12790) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 02/03/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By this application under Section 438 r/w. Sections 442 and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) the applicant seeks to challenge an order dated 19.07.2024 passed below Exh. 5 in GLGP Case No. 6 of 2023 by the learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the discharge application filed by the present applicant.

2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service for the respondents – State.

2.1 Considering the issue involved in the matter and with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is heard finally today.

3. Outlined facts of the case of the applicant is that an FIR being C.R. No. 11196010230003 of 2023 came to be registered with the DCB Police Station, Vadodara City for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 4(3) and 5 of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020 against accused persons named therein, in which, Charge-sheet came to be filed on 15.02.2023, wherein, the present applicant came to be shown as Witness No. 38. It is stated that subsequently, a supplementary Charge-sheet came to be filed on 04.03.2023, wherein, the present applicant is shown as Witness No. 39. Thereafter, another supplementary Charge-sheet came to be filed on 23.05.2023, wherein, the present applicant is arraigned as accused No. 8. Accordingly, the applicant preferred an application under Sections 239 r/w. Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (the Code) for discharging the applicant from the offence in question. The said application came to be rejected, as aforesaid, by the learned Sessions Judge, being aggrieved of which, this revision application has been filed by the applicant.

4. Heard, the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents – State.

4.1 The learned advocate for the applicant, drawing attention of the Court to the impugned order, more particularly, paragraph 4 onward thereof, would submit that no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order and coming to such a conclusion of rejecting the discharge application. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has cursorily observed in the said order that a prima facie case and involvement of the applicant is made out. It is submitted that, however, the learned Sessions Judge has not given any reasons as to what was weighed with him and as to what prima facie evidence is there against the present applicant so as to frame the charge against the present applicant. Thus, in the submission of the learned advocate for the applicant, the learned Sessions Judge has materially erred in not considering the evidence on record and the Charge-sheet papers which could be evident from the unreasoned order itself. Accordingly, it is urged that this application may be allowed setting aside the impugned order herein.

5. As against this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents – State, while supporting the impugned order, would submit that the trial Court, after considering the material on record, has recorded th