Section 250 BNSS – Discharge

(1) The accused may prefer an application for discharge within a period of sixty days from the date of commitment of the case under section 232.

(2) If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.

Corresponding provisions — source comparison

Reference in this text	Correspondence / source caption
Section 250 — Discharge	Corresponding provision: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, section 227 Source ↗

Comments

Discharge — forged original not producedNon-production of the original allegedly forged document is no ground for discharge; the prosecution may prove forgery at trial by secondary or circumstantial evidence. At charge the court looks for grave suspicion, without a mini-trial. — Antonetto J D’souza v. Aldila Braganza, 2026 INSC 1032.

Discharge — ingredients not disclosedWhere the prosecution material, taken at face value, does not disclose the ingredients of abetment of suicide (s. 306 IPC) or of ss. 504 and 506 IPC, discharge must be granted; the accused was discharged. — Vinod Shivakumar v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 INSC 867.

Material to be considered at chargeAt discharge or charge, the court looks only at the police-report material under s. 173(2) CrPC, assumes it to be true, and asks whether it raises grave suspicion; defence material, a mini-trial or the standard of proof for conviction have no place at this stage. — AAA v. Linda Sema, 2026 INSC 675.

Discharge — vague allegations; parityGeneral allegations without an overt act or defined role do not raise grave suspicion. Where similarly placed co-accused in the same administrative chain had been discharged on the same allegations, parity and Article 14 required the appellant’s discharge too. — Susanta Kumar Dalei v. State of Odisha, 2026 INSC 510.

Suspicion is not grave suspicionAt charge the judge may sift evidence only to find a prima facie case, without a mini-trial. If two views are possible and one raises mere suspicion rather than grave suspicion, the accused may be discharged; care at this stage matters because the process itself can become the punishment. — Dr. Anand Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 141; AIR 2026 SC 1069.

Test for dischargeThe judge may sift evidence to see if a prima facie case exists; mere suspicion, as against grave suspicion, warrants discharge. The judge is not a post office for the prosecution and must consider the broad probabilities and basic infirmities. — Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba v. State of West Bengal, 2025 INSC 1373.

False promise of marriageBreach of a promise to marry is not rape unless consent was obtained by fraud from the start; a complainant in a year-long consensual relationship who knew the accused was married was not acting under misconception, and the accused was discharged. — Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, 2025 INSC 458; AIR 2025 SC 1925.

Electrocution death — no s. 304 Part IIThe death of two workers by electrocution while fixing a signboard showed no intention or knowledge on the part of the contractor and store manager; with the ingredients of s. 304 Part II IPC absent, they were discharged. — Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 338; AIR 2025 SC 1515.

Ex parte stay of dischargeA discharged accused stands higher than one acquitted; the High Court’s ex parte stay of a discharge order and direction to surrender were set aside, the accused to furnish bail under s. 390 CrPC pending the revision. — Sudershan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 INSC 281.

Stay of discharge only in rare casesA discharge removes the person from the category of accused, so staying it is drastic: it should be granted only rarely, where the order is ex facie perverse, after hearing the discharged person, and moulded so that the trial does not proceed against him pending revision. — Sudershan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 INSC 281.

Loan repayment demands not abetmentAbetment of suicide needs instigation or intentional aid with mens rea to drive the deceased to suicide. Demanding repayment of a loan, even harshly, does not qualify unless it leaves no option but suicide; the appellant was discharged. — Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 76; AIR 2025 SC 568.

Discharge on charge-sheet documents onlyOn a discharge application only the documents forming part of the charge-sheet are considered. — Rajnish Kumar Biswakarma v. State of NCT of Delhi, Supreme Court, 2024.

Judge is not a post officeThe judge must sift the prosecution evidence and decide whether grave suspicion exists; mere suspicion warrants discharge, without a mini-trial. — Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2024 SC 5081.

Reasons for rejecting dischargeWhen rejecting a discharge application the court must give reasons, though brief, for finding a prima facie case, so that a superior court can examine the challenge. — Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2024 SC 3540.

No charge where ingredients absentIf the prosecution’s own admitted material does not make out the ingredients of an offence, the court need not frame a charge for it. — Shashikant Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 INSC 1036.

Discharge on prosecution material onlyAt discharge and charge the accused has no right to produce documents; ‘the record of the case’ means the prosecution’s material, the test is a prima facie case, and probative value is not weighed. A revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence or hunt for inconsistencies in witness statements on a discharge plea. — State of Gujarat v. Dilipsingh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 INSC 894.

No discharge application mid-trialAn interlocutory application for discharge in the middle of trial is not maintainable. — State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda, 2023 INSC 669.

Discharge — prima facie testA prima facie case is needed in sessions, warrant and summons cases alike. The trial court cannot discharge from murder merely because the post-mortem says cardio-respiratory failure; the court must not act as a post office but sifting is not a mini trial, and strong suspicion suffices. — Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, AIR 2022 SC 5454.

Broad probabilitiesOn discharge the court considers the broad probabilities and total effect of the material, through a simple inquiry. — Kanchan Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 2022 SC 4288; (2022) 9 SCC 577.

Discrepancies are for trialDiscrepancies between the FIR and a s. 164 statement may be a defence but are no ground for discharge. — Hazrat Deen v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Supreme Court, 2022.

Section 300 plea at dischargeDischarge precedes framing of charge, and the s. 300 plea is to be considered at that stage. — Chandi Puliya v. State of West Bengal, Supreme Court, 2022.

Section 250 BNSS Discharge

Judgments on Section 250

Santhosh Kumar N.P. v. State-station House Officer