In the case of Gopalbhai Naranbhai v. State of Gujarat, the court ruled that there is enough evidence in the record to support the petitioner's guilt, and that the proof is sufficient. It continued by noting that the level of evaluation and judgement that must be utilized in order to determine whether the accused is guilty or not is not necessarily to be employed when considering the case under sections 227 or 228 of the CrPC.
The petitioner in this case was charged with violating Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 506(2), 504, 143, 144, 147, 148, and 149 of the IPC as well as Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. The prosecution stated that a fight broke out among the petitioner's caste members in front of the police during a meeting, resulting in several members suffering injuries and two people dying. After being taken into custody, the petitioner was released on bond.
The Prosecution failed to follow any procedure under Section 226 of the CrPC, according to the Petitioner, who made this argument in the Revision Application before the Trial Court. On the other hand, the Prosecution claimed that they had relied sufficiently on all papers. The Petitioner's plea for release from the trial was denied by the Trial Court on the basis of the documented evidence.
The Petitioner contested this ruling in front of the current Bench, claiming that there was no evidence against him and that he had only been arrested due to his presence at the scene. If there were insufficient grounds to continue against an accused individual under Section 227, that person is entitled to a discharge. The APP contended, however, that the charge-sheet and supporting documentation proved the petitioner was guilty of the crime for which he was meant to stand trial.
The petitioner has repeatedly attempted to submit a number of applications to extend the trial, Justice Dave remarked. Additionally, there was enough evidence to support a trial about the petitioner's statements and actions. To reaffirm, Justice Dave cited State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh "If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even at the conclusion of the, trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. But, if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial stage of making an order under section 227 or section 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made will be one under section 228 (framing of charge) and not under section 227."
The High Court cited State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa to highlight the meaning of "presume" and came to the conclusion that charges must be filed if the court determines that the commission of the offence is likely.
The High Court concluded that the Trial Court's conclusion did not suffer from illegality and was entitled to be sustained in light of these rulings.