In Brief
The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeals against a High Court order that had discharged an accused for criminal intimidation. The High Court had discharged the accused solely on the basis of a discrepancy in the timing of the alleged incident (11:30 a.m. versus 5:30 p.m.). The Court held that at the discharge stage, judges must sift evidence only to determine if a prima facie case exists, but should not conduct a detailed trial-like inquiry. A mere timing discrepancy cannot be the sole ground for discharge; the totality of material must be considered. Since the complaint and investigative report prima facie disclosed threats with dire consequences, the Court set aside the discharge and directed the trial court to proceed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.