2025:JHHC:18445 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 415 of 2025 …. 1. Sunil Kumar Rana @ Sunil Kumar, aged about 41 years, S/o Ram Lochan, R/o Village- Mandai Khurd, Sindur, PO- Mandai, PO-Sadar, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand 2. Vikash Lal Yadav @ Munna Yadav @ Munna Gop, aged about 46years, S/o Chote Lal, R/o Dipugarha, Behind S. P. Kothi, PO & PS- Korra, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand …… Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sikandar Saw, S/o Late Lalendra Saw, R/o Village- Kudar, PO- Ghargulli, PS- Bagodar, District- Giridih, Jharkhand …… Opp. Parties With Cr. Revision No. 431 of 2025 …. 1. Suraj Yadav, aged about 42 years, S/o Shankar Yadav, R/o Shanti Nagar, Barkattha, Gaira, Chuglamo, PO & PS- Barkattha, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand 2. Md. Kasim @ Kasim Ansari @ Md. Kashim, aged about 27 years, S/o Abdul Qyayum, R/o Chalkusa, PO & PS- Barhi, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand …… Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sikandar Saw, S/o Late Lalendra Saw, R/o Village- Kudar, PO- Ghargulli, PS- Bagodar, District- Giridih, Jharkhand …… Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate ( in both cases) For the State : Mr. V. S. Sahay, A. P. P. [Cr. Revision No. 415 of 2025] Ms. Bandana Singh, A. P. P. [Cr. Revision No. 431 of 2025] For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate (in both cases) …… 2025:JHHC:18445 2 ORAL ORDER IN COURT 04/01.07.2025 Both the Criminal Revisions i.e. Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2025, (which has been filed on behalf of the petitioners Sunil Kumar Rana @ Sunil Kumar and Vikash Lal Yadav @ Munna Yadav @ Munna Gop) and Criminal Revision No. 431 of 2025, (which has been filed on behalf of the petitioners Suraj Yadav and Md. Kasim @ Kasim Ansari @ Md. Kashim) are arising out of the common order dated 10.03.2025 passed by Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in Mis. Criminal Application No. 1340 of 2024 and Mis. Criminal Application No. 1619 of 2024 and as such, both the Criminal Revisions are being heard together and disposed of by the common order. 2. Both Criminal Revisions i.e. Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2025 and Criminal Revision No. 431 of 2025 have been filed on behalf of all four petitioners challenging the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in Mis. Criminal Application No. 1340 of 2024 and Mis. Criminal Application No. 1619 of 2024 in connection with Bagodar P. S. Case No. 07 of 2024 corresponding to G. R. No. 996 of 2024 [S.T. No. 301 of 2024] under Sections 341/323/307/ 302/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act by which learned Sessions Judge, Giridih has rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of all four petitioners under Section 227/239 of the Cr.P.C., by observing that prima facie case is made out against all four petitioners for the offences under Sections 341/323/307/ 302/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2025:JHHC:18445 3 3. It is alleged by the Informant –Sikendar Saw (i.e. Opposite Party no. 2) that on 09.01.2024 at 6.30 P.M. while he was in his house, then his bus staff Deepak Pandey informed on the mobile of his brother Dhaneshwar Sao that his elder brother Taleshwar Sao has been shot by pistol. Thereafter he alongwih his brother-Dhaneshwar Sao and nearby villagers arrived at the road near the place of occurrence and saw that his elder brother was lying and he had sustained injuries in his body and thereafter he brought his injured brother by Bolero Vehicle at Primary Health Centre, Barketta. It is also alleged that his elder brother informed him at Barketta that while he was going by Motorcycle from Gharguli More to his residence, then he was chased by four persons on two (2) Motorcycle in Dhankitand Road and shot bullet from pistol from behind and the miscreants had fled away. It is further alleged that earlier his brother was assaulted by Vikash Lal Yadav @ Munna Yadav @ Munna Gop (Owner of Sagar Bus) i.e. the petitioner no. 2 and Sunil Kumar Rana @ Sunil Kumar (Manager of Sagar Bus) i.e. the petitioner no. 1 of Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2025 on 24.12.2023 for which a case was instituted in Hazaribagh Sadar Police Station and both the accused had threatened his brother to withdraw the case, otherwise he will be killed by shooter. It is further alleged that two (2) months prior to the occurrence, his brother has also dispute with Suraj Yadav i.e. the petitioner no. 1 of Criminal Revision No. 431 of 2025 and Ranjeet (both owner of Gonda Bus) and Md. Kasim @ Kasim Ansari @ Md. Kashim (Driver of Bablu Bus) i.e. the petitioner no. 2 of Criminal Revision No. 431 of 2025 and they had also threatened his brother on 06.01.2024 of dire consequences if he continued to ply his bus. 2025:JHHC:18445 4 4. Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for the petitioners assisted by Mr. Rishu Ranjan, learned counsel in both the Criminal Revision Applications and Mr. V. S. Sahay learned counsel for the State in Cr. Revision No. 415 of 2025 and Ms. Bandana Singh, A. P. P. in Cr. Revision No. 431 of 2025 and Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, learned counsel on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 in both the Criminal Revisions Applications. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the allegations against all the four petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2025 and Criminal Revision No. 431 of 2025 are false and concocted. It is submitted that the petitioners have been implicated in this case on mere suspicion and there is no eye witness of the occurrence and no incriminating articles have been recovered from the possessions of these petitioners. It is submitted that the Informant has not stated in the FIR as to who had assaulted the Injured-deceased brother of the Informant and the names of four persons chasing the brother of the Informant by two Motorcycles have not been disclosed in the FIR. It is submitted that the petitioners have been implicated on mere suspicion as they have Bus rivalry business with the deceased-brother of the Informant for which they have been falsely implicated by the Police. It is submitted that the alleged video recording of the statement of the deceased- Taleshwar Sao taken by the Informant –Sikendar Sao has not been handed over to them while giving police paper, which is in-complete violation of Section 207 of the Cr. P. C. It is submitted that charges cannot 2025:JHHC:18445 5 be framed on mere suspicion. It is further submitted that the statement of witnesses recorded by the IO during investigation are interested persons and they have named the petitioners on suspicion only. In support of their contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane Versus State of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 2 SCC 135 and in the case of Harishchandra Prasad Mani and Ors. Versus State of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2007) 15 SCC 494 and in the case of P.Vijayan Versus State of Kerala and Another reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398. It is submitted that in view of above fact, the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Giridih may be set aside and the Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2025 and Criminal Revision No. 431 of 2025 may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required by this Court. It is submitted that witnesses namely Chandrika Prasad, Ranjeet Ram, Deepak Pandey, Sandeep Kumar Sao, Thakur Nayak and Uttam Goshwami, whose statement were recorded at para-8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 respectively of the case diary have supported the case of the Informant and have stated that all the petitioners had threatened the deceased - Taleshwar Sao for not plying the bus, otherwise he may be killed. It is submitted that para-29 of the case diary has mentioned regarding the Video Footage of the deceased- Tarkeshwar Sao, who had named the four petitioners i.e. the petitioners Sunil Kumar Rana @ Sunil Kumar and Vikash Lal Yadav @ Munna Yadav @ Munna Gop in Criminal Revision 2025:JHHC:18445 6 No. 415 of 2025 and the petitioners Suraj Yadav and Md. Kasim @ Kasim Ansari @ Md. Kashim in Criminal Revision No. 431 of 2025 for causing this offence against him and the said Video Footage seized vide the Production-cum-Seizure List by taking certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. It is submitted that the deceased- Tarkeshwar Sao had stated in his Video Footage that all the four petitioners have managed the shooter for killing the deceased and as such, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court and the above Criminal Revision Applications may be dismissed. 7. Perused the records of this case and FIR and the case diary and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below and considered the submissions of both the sides. 8. It appears that strong suspicion has been shown against the four petitioners in the FIR by the Informant –Sikendar Sao for committing the murder of his deceased brother- Tarkeshwar Sao. 9. It appears that witnesses namely Chandrika Prasad, Ranjeet Ram, Deepak Pandey, Sandeep Kumar Sao, Thakur Nayak and Uttam Goshwami, whose statements have been recorded at para-8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 respectively of the case diary have supported the allegation against the petitioners. 10. It also appears from para-50 of the case diary i.e. the statement of Kanchan Kumari i.e. the wife of the deceased - Taleshwar Sao that she is also alleged that her deceased husband was perplexed due to threaten given by the petitioners, otherwise he will be killed. 11. It further appears that para-29 of the case diary contains the description of Video Footage of Mobile Phone of 2025:JHHC:18445 7 the Informant-Sikandar Sao, which is said to be statement of the deceased- Taleshwar Sao taking the name of the four petitioners and for which one certificate was also given by the Informant –Sikandar Sao under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and the said mobile footage was given to the I.O in 32 GB Pen Drive of Sand Disk Company (Sand Disk Cruiser Blade) alongwith production- cum-seizure list on 12.01.2002. 12. It has been held that in the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane Versus State of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 2 SCC 135 at paragraph No.12 as follows:- “Para-12:-. Now the next question is whether a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant. In exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial (see Union 2025:JHHC:18445 8 of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal ).” 13. It has been held that in the case of Harishchandra Prasad Mani and Ors. Versus State of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2007) 15 SCC 494 at paragraph nos. 13 and 14 as follows:- “Para-13:- In the present case, there is not even an iota of material indicating the guilt of the accused persons. It is true that at the stage of taking cognizance adequacy of evidence will not be seen by the court, but there has to be at least some material implicating the accused, and cognizance cannot be taken merely on the basis of suspicion as it appears to have been done in the present case. To take a contrary view would only lead to harassment of people. Para-14:- No doubt, it has been alleged in the complaint that the wife of the deceased was having an affair with Accused 2, but this itself is only a suspicion and cannot be the basis of a conviction. Similarly, the fact that the in-laws of the deceased did not take part in his cremation is not evidence to show their guilt.” 14. It appears that the judgments rendered in the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane Versus State of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 2 SCC 135 and in the case of Harishchandra Prasad Mani and Ors. Versus State of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2007) 15 SCC 494 are not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases as there is grave suspicion against the petitioners for causing death of the deceased Tarkeshwar Sao due to rivalry in bus plying. It is well settled law that enmity cuts both the ways. 15. It has been held that in the case of P.Vijayan Versus State of Kerala and Another reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398 at paragraph no. 15 as follows:- “Para-15:- In a recent decision, in Soma Chakravarty v. State [(2007) 5 SCC 403 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 514] , 2025:JHHC:18445 9 this Court has held that: (SCC p. 403d-f) “The settled legal position is that if on the basis of material on record the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true … Before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial. (Para 10) * * * Charge may although be directed to be framed when there exists a strong suspicion but it is also trite that the court must come to a prima facie finding that there exist some materials therefor. Suspicion alone, without anything more, cannot form the basis therefor or held to be sufficient for framing charge. (Para 19)” (emphasis in original) 16. It also appears that the judgment rendered in the case of P.Vijayan Versus State of Kerala and Another reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398 is also not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases, rather it supports the case of the State as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that at the stage of framing of charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true. 17. At this stage, this Court refrains itself from giving any observation in view of the stand taken by the petitioners as it may prejudice the case of the petitioners. The learned Court below has rightly exercised its discretion by passing the order 2025:JHHC:18445 10 and if detailed discussion is made with regard to the stand of the State counsel or the learned counsel for the petitioners, it may affect the merit of the trial. 18. It is well settled from a catena of decisions that meticulous examination of statement of witnesses has not to be done at the stage of framing of charges. 19. It is also well settled that the defence of the accused person cannot be looked into at the stage of framing of charges. 20. It has been held in the case of Anup Kumar Lakhotia Vs. The Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2022 (1) JLJR page 127 and Para-25 of the said judgment is as follows: “Para-25:- The learned court below, while considering the petition for discharge considered the scope of Section 227 of Cr. P. C. and recorded that hearing the submissions of the accused as postulated by Section 227 means hearing the submissions of the accused on the record of the case as filed by the prosecution and documents submitted therewith and nothing more. The expression ‘hearing the submissions of the accused’ cannot mean opportunity to file material is to be granted to the accused. At the stage of framing of charge hearing the submissions of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the police.” 21. It has been held that in the case of State By The Inspector Of Police, Chennai vs. S. Selvi and Another reported in 2018 (13) SCC 455 at paragraph No.10 as follows:- “Para-10:- If on the basis of the material on record, the Court would form prima facie opinion that the accused might have committed the offence, it can frame charge, though for conviction it is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of 2025:JHHC:18445 11 framing of charges, the probative value of the material on record has to be gone into and the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant conviction. The Court is required to evaluate the material on record at the stage of Sections 227 or 239 of the Code, as the case may be, only with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at the face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the Court has to proceed with the presumption that materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate such material with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose existence of the ingredients of the offence.” 22. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. E. Shivalingamurthy Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru reported in (2020) 2 SCC 768 at para17.3, 17.6 and 18 as follows:- “Para-17.3:-The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court. Para-17.6:- The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, would not entitle the court make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons. Para-18:- The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 CrPC (see State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar). The expression. "the record of the case", used in Section 227 CrPC, is to be understood as the documents and the articles, if any. produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right 2025:JHHC:18445 12 to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of the charge. the submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the police (see State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi).” 23. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Ors and in the case of Kanta Devi Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. reported in (2020) 2 SCC 290 at para-39 as follows:- “Para-39:- The court while considering the question of framing charges under Section 227 CrPC has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the accused. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. If the material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with the trial. The probative value of the evidence brought on record cannot be gone into at the stage of framing charges. The court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value disclose the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter, the evidence is not to be weighed as if a trial is being conducted. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh where it has been held that at the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 or 228 Cr.P.C., if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence, then the court should proceed with the trial. 24. So far as the judgements cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane 2025:JHHC:18445 13 Versus State of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 2 SCC 135 and in the case of P.Vijayan Versus State of Kerala and Another reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398 are concerned, the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case as in the above cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court had allowed the discharge petition on the ground that the accused can be discharged, if some suspicion is found, but not in the case of grave suspicion against the accused persons. So far the judgment rendered in the case of Harishchandra Prasad Mani and Ors. Versus State of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2007) 15 SCC 494 is concerned, the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case as the above judgment has been rendered in the case on the point of order taking cognizance against the accused persons. 25. So far as the grievances of the petitioners for not supplying of Video Footage of Mobile Phone is concerned, the same has to be complied with because the prosecution has itself stated in the case diary at para-29 that the Informant had furnished the video footage of Mobile Phone of the Informant wherein the deceased - Taleshwar Sao was taking the name of the petitioners and the same has to be supplied to the petitioners for proper compliance of Section 207 of the Cr. P. C. However, the said Video Footage is relied by the State and as such, the copy of the same has to be furnished to the accused persons i.e. the petitioners. 26. Thus in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and also considering the gravity of offence, this Court finds that the Court below has committed no illegality by passing the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in 2025:JHHC:18445 14 Mis. Criminal Application No. 1340 of 2024 and Mis. Criminal Application No. 1619 of 2024 in connection with Bagodar P. S. Case No. 07 of 2024 corresponding to G. R. No. 996 of 2024 [S.T. No. 301 of 2024] by rejecting the petition for discharge filed on behalf of the petitioners. 27. Considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is evident that the both Criminal Revisions i.e. Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2025 and Criminal Revision No. 431 of 2025 are devoid of merit and accordingly, the Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2025 and Criminal Revision No. 431 of 2025 are dismissed but without any costs. 28. However, learned Court below is directed to furnish the Video Footage of Mobile Phone to the petitioners, if not given so far with the police papers and it is the duty of the learned Trial Court to ensure to supply of the Video Footage of the mobile as mentioned at para- 20 of the case diary to the petitioners. 29. Thus, both Criminal Revisions i.e. Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2025 and Criminal Revision No. 431 of 2025 are dismissed with the above observations. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Kamlesh/N.A.F.R.