At the discharge stage, the court performs a limited assessment to determine the existence of a prima facie case. If materials disclose grave suspicion, the court is justified in proceeding to trial without conducting a roving inquiry or evaluating the ultimate probability of conviction.

ORDER :

Gita Gopi, J.

1. The applicant is read as accused no.6 in the charge-sheet filed by the CBI. The challenge is given to the order passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), Court No.7, City Civil and Sessions Court at Ahmedabad. The order dated 30.05.2025 below Exh.9 in CBI Case Nos.14 and 20 of 2024 rejected the application, moved under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , wherein the prayer was made to discharge the applicant from the charges. The FIR was registered on 05.05.2024 as 11207024240491/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘I.P.C’) and Section 7 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the ‘PC Act’) against three accused.

2. In the said FIR, the present applicant was not named as an accused. During the course of investigation by the State agency, two other persons were arraigned as accused. Thereafter by a notification dated 23.06.2024 issued by the State Government, the investigation of the offence was transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation and the offence came to be re-registered as CBI F.I.R RC2212024E0005 dated 23.06.2024 at EO-III branch, CBI New Delhi.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Vikas Nair along with learned Advocate Mr. Jignesh Modi submitted that even in that FIR filed by the CBI, the applicant was not named in the FIR nor even any remote allegations were raised against the applicant, however, subsequently, on 29.06.2024, he was arrested and thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed qua five accused on 07.08.2024. Advocate Mr. Nair submitted that the charge-sheet makes mere reference of the applicant without any material connecting the applicant in any of the offences as alleged and the sections so invoked.

3.1 It is submitted by advocate Mr. Nair that it is by the supplementary charge-sheet dated 25.09.2024, the applicant came to be charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 477A, 511, 201, 120-B of IPC and Sections 7(a), 7A, 8 and 12 of the PC Act. Advocate Mr. Nair submitted that the CBI had no reason to arrest the applicant where the State Agency had not found any case against the present applicant. Merely relying on the statement of one - Vishnu Sharma with an additional statement of Ms. Ketki Vikas Patel, it cannot be stated that the applicant was involved in any of the alleged offences. It is the submission of learned Advocate Mr. Nair referring to the statement of Mr. Vishnu Sharma and Ms. Ketki Patelin that the statement does not reflect any conspiracy of the present applicant with other co-accused, as the present applicant was the trustee of Jay Jalaram International School (JJIS, Godhra). It is submitted by advocate Mr. Nair that Purshottam Sharma was appointee by the Central Authority and who had conducted the NEET UG 2024 examination and subsequently, Tushar Rajnikant Bhatt was appointed as a Deputy Centre Superintendent of the NTA. Advocate Mr. Nair stated that Purshottam Sharma was appointed being a Principal of Jay Jalaram School, Godhra by the NTA as a City Co-ordinator for the Godhra Centre (Gujarat State) and the remuneration to Purshottam Sharma as well as Tushar Bhatt would be paid by the authority conducting the NEET examination.

3.2 It is the submission of advocate Mr. Nair that the present applicant being the trustee of two schools would have no role to play in the appointment of the City Co-ordinator nor in the appointment of Deputy Centre Superintendent of the NTA. The allegation, therefore, of any corruption would not bind this applicant as a trustee and th