Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Discharge Accused in Attempt to Murder Case; Holds Prima Facie Case Made Out at Stage of Framing of Charges

Case Name: Vijay v. State of Haryana

Date of Judgment: 12 January 2026

Citation: CRR-2839-2025

Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition and upheld the order of the trial court rejecting the petitioner’s plea for discharge under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court held that at the stage of framing of charges, the court is only required to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of a prima facie case and not to weigh the probative value of evidence. Where allegations and medical opinion disclose grave suspicion of an offence involving intent to cause death, discharge is impermissible.

Summary: The petitioner challenged the order dated 7 August 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby his application seeking discharge from the offence punishable under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was dismissed and charges under Sections 118(2), 351(3) and 109(1) BNS were framed. The FIR arose out of an incident dated 8 January 2025 in which the petitioner was alleged to have assaulted the complainant Suresh with a gandassi while co-accused inflicted fist and kick blows.

The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated and that the complainant party was the aggressor. It was argued that the injury suffered by the complainant was confined to the forearm, that no bone damage had occurred, and that a false medical opinion declaring the injury to be dangerous to life had been procured. The petitioner asserted that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 109(1) BNS were not made out and that the trial court had failed to consider these aspects while rejecting the discharge application.

The State and the complainant opposed the petition, contending that the injury sustained was a deep cut on the wrist resulting in massive blood loss, with the limb being almost severed. It was submitted that the medical opinion clearly opined the injury to be dangerous to life and that at the stage of framing of charges, the defence version could not be examined.

The High Court examined the scope of Section 250 BNSS, which is pari materia with Section 227 CrPC, and reiterated settled principles governing discharge and framing of charges. Relying on decisions of the Supreme Court including P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao and Tarun Jit Tejpal v. State of Goa, the Court held that at the pre-trial stage, the court is not required to conduct a roving enquiry or assess whether the material would ultimately lead to conviction.

On appraisal of the FIR, medical opinion and statements of witnesses, the Court found that the allegations disclosed a prima facie case of a life-threatening injury inflicted with a sharp-edged weapon, clearly attracting Section 109(1) BNS. The trial court was held to have passed a well-reasoned and speaking order, warranting no interference in revision.

Decision: The criminal revision petition was dismissed. The order rejecting the petitioner’s discharge application and framing charges under Sections 118(2), 351(3) and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was upheld. The Court clarified that the observations made were confined to the decision of the revision petition and would not prejudice the merits of the trial.