Prima facie absence of involvement defeats discharge refusal where no evidence linked the accused to detention or custodial assault.

A discharge refusal cannot stand where the record shows no prima facie material linking the accused to the alleged custodial assault, no contemporaneous evidence that he directed the suspects to the police station or knew of their detention, and no basis to infer participation or common intention. The Bombay HC found the impugned order cryptic and unreasoned, relying on an inadequate appraisal of the material, including departmental inquiry material and witness statements. It also held that the applicant was similarly placed to the co-accused who had already been discharged. The rejection of discharge was therefore unsustainable, and the discharge order was set aside in the applicant's favour.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order rejecting the applicant's discharge application could be sustained when no prima facie material showed that he had directed the suspects to be brought to the police station or had knowledge of their detention and assault, and when the refusal of discharge was unsupported by reasons and inconsistent with the discharge granted to the co-accused.

Analysis: The impugned order was found to be cryptic and unsupported by an adequate prima facie appraisal of the record. The material placed before the Court, including the departmental inquiry material and witness statements, indicated that the suspects were brought to the police station by other police personnel, that no station diary entry or other contemporaneous record showed any direction or instruction from the applicant, and that there was no material showing that he knew of the subsequent custodial assault. The Court also found that the applicant stood on the same footing as the co-accused who had already been discharged, and that no basis existed to attribute the alleged offence to the applicant in the absence of evidence of participation, knowledge, or common intention.

Conclusion: The rejection of discharge was unsustainable. The applicant was entitled to discharge and the order was set aside to that extent.

Ratio Decidendi: A discharge order cannot be sustained where the record discloses no prima facie material connecting the accused with the offence, no contemporaneous evidence of participation or knowledge, and the impugned refusal proceeds on a vague and unreasoned basis notwithstanding parity with a similarly placed co-accused.

---