At the stage of framing charges or considering discharge, the court must only determine if the materials on record reveal a grave suspicion of the accused's involvement, without conducting a mini-trial or performing final evidentiary adjudication, as the latter is strictly reserved for the trial stage.

ORDER

The petitioner, arrayed as A-6 in S.C.No.358 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, seeks interference with the order dated 17.02.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 6792 of 2025 dismissing his petition for discharge. The petitioner stands charged for offences under Sections 120-B and 302 read with 109 IPC. The principal contention advanced on his behalf is that there is neither direct evidence nor legally admissible material connecting him with the occurrence and that the prosecution has attempted to rope him in merely on suspicion and inadmissible confessional statements.

2. The State, on the other hand, would contend that the investigation has unearthed sufficient materials indicating motive, participation in the conspiracy and financial assistance allegedly provided by the petitioner towards the commission of the offence and that such materials are more than adequate to proceed to trial.

3. The controversy therefore lies within the narrow but important contours of the jurisdiction exercised under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, while examining the correctness of an order refusing discharge.

Factual background:

4. The respondent police registered Crime No.218 of 2023 in connection with the murder of one V.S.L.Kumar @ Murugaiyan. After completion of investigation, a final report came to be filed against thirteen accused persons.

5. The prosecution case discloses that the deceased and A-1 were earlier involved in a murder case arising out of factional rivalry. Though they were once associates, subsequent events allegedly resulted in serious hostility between them. After their release from prison, A-1 established certain business ventures at Thirukattupalli, which according to the prosecution became the source of further animosity between the deceased and A1's group.

6. The prosecution further alleges that A-3, A-4, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-12 and A-13, being close associates of A-1, also developed hostility towards the deceased owing to repeated quarrels and altercations. A-5 allegedly nurtured a separate grievance against the deceased on account of previous incidents involving his family members. A-2 was a friend of A-5 and A-11 was a friend of A-2.

7. As far as the present petitioner/A-6 is concerned, the prosecution alleges that he had developed a motive against the deceased because the deceased had earlier murdered the persons responsible for the death of his uncle Panchabikesan and had allegedly been demanding money from him on that account.

8. According to the prosecution, on 26.10.2023, A-1 met A-5 and the petitioner at Tiruchirappalli and expressed his inability to tolerate the conduct of the deceased. It is alleged that the petitioner instigated A-1 to eliminate the deceased and further provided a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the execution of the plan. The prosecution also alleges that conspiratorial meetings were held earlier at Velankanni and preparations were made by arranging vehicles and deadly weapons.

9. On 31.10.2023, the accused persons allegedly intercepted the deceased, rammed his motorcycle with a car and thereafter attacked him with deadly weapons causing fatal injuries resulting in his death at the scene of occurrence.

10.