2025:JHHC:21031 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No.742 of 2025 ----- Shankar Prasad Yadav, s/o Nanulal Prasad, r/o village Patel Chowk Jalsar Road, Deoghar, PO and PS Deogher, District Deoghar, Jharkhand … Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Dayaram, s/o Muneshwar Ram, Junior Engineer, Punasi Dam Division Jasidih, PO and PS Jasidih, District Deoghar, Jharkhand at present r/o village Sohgada, PO Shivpur, PS Kadi, District Garhwa, Jharkhand … Opposite Party(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate For the Opp. Party(s) : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, Advocate …...... 02 /30.07.2025: Heard the parties. 2. The prayer in this application is for setting aside the order dated 10.03.2025 passed in MCA No. 101 of 2025 arising out of S.T. Case No. 04 of 2025 (Mohanpur PS Case No. 72 of 2018) registered for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 343, 307, 353, 385, 387, 120(B), 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar whereby the petitioner’s prayer for discharging him from the present case has been rejected and was directed to appear before the concerned Court for framing of charge. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner including the others constituted unlawful assembly and have obstructed the construction of Punasi Dam and were demanding money by way of extortion. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence on that day rather he was at Ranchi and had stayed in the Hotel Janta. Thus no charge can be framed against him. 5. From the argument of the petitioner, I find that he has raised a plea of alibi in the petition for discharge, in his defence. 2025:JHHC:21031 2 All the points he has raised needs to be proved by him by adducing evidence. This can only be done by the petitioner at the stage of evidence and not at the stage of discharge. Further, I find that in the impugned order, the learned court observed that there is sufficient material in paragraph nos. 3, 7 and 8 of the case diary against the petitioner. 6. Thus, I find no illegality in the impugned order. 7. This criminal revision is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/