1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 163 of 2025 …. Uttam Kumar, Aged about 29 years, Son of Khemlal Mahto, Resident of Village-Belatand, PO- Karmatand, PS-Dugda, Bokaro Jharia (O.P.), District- Bokaro …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opp. Party ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate Mr. Suman Kumar Ghosh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P. P. Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, A.P.P. …… ORAL ORDER IN COURT ....... 06/20.06.2025 This Criminal Revision No. 163 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Dugda P. S. Case No. 28 of 2022 corresponding to G. R. No. 596 of 2022 instituted for the offences under Sections 341/323/353/171 (c)/ 504/506/189/188 of the Indian Penal Code by which the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat has rejected the discharge petition filed under Section 239 of the Cr. P. C. on behalf of the petitioner. 2. As per the FIR, it has been alleged that the petitioner- Uttam Kumar and another- Ashok Kumar Mahato are alleged to have put obstruction in the official work of the Informant on the eve of Election Duty and even the dress of the Informant-Sunil Pandey was torn. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner 2 that the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner for tearing the dress of the Informant and obstructing him are false and concocted. It is submitted that the petitioner is working in Sashastra Seema Bal and had arrived to cast the vote on the date of Election. It is submitted that all the witnesses mentioned in the case diary are the police witnesses and no independent witnesses have been examined as shown in the case diary and hence, the learned Court below has committed illegality by rejecting the discharge petition filed under Section 239 of the Cr. P. C. and as such, Criminal Revision No. 163 of 2025 may be allowed and the impugned order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the learned Court below may be set aside in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that this Criminal Revision Application is devoid of merit and the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that apart from the allegation made in the FIR, the Informant during his statement recorded at para-2 of the case diary has supported the allegation. It is submitted that the other witnesses namely Hajari Prasad, Uday Shankar Singh, Vikash Thakur, Anita Kerketta, Monika Herej, whose statements have been recorded at para-10, 11, 29, 30, 31 and 32 respectively have fully supported the allegation against the petitioner for obstructing the Informant during his official work and Ballot Papers were also recovered from his possession and the petitioner was helping some political party and as such, the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is 3 required from this Court and the Criminal Revision No. 163 of 2025 may be dismissed. 6. Perused the Lower Court Records of the case and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below and considered the submissions of both the sides. 7. It appears that petitioner is alleged to have obstructed in the official duty of the Informant on the date of Election. 8. From perusal of the case diary, it appears that all the witnesses are police officials and there is no independent witness. 9. It also appears from the seizure list mentioned at para-69 that even the torn dress of the Informant has not been brought on record. 10. It also appears that the allegation against the petitioner appears to be superficial. It also appears that even the Informant has not disclosed that which political party the petitioner was helping. 11. Under the circumstances, the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in connection with Dugda P. S. Case No. 28 of 2022 corresponding to G. R. No. 596 of 2022 is set aside in the interest of justice and the case is remitted back to the learned Court below to pass afresh speaking order in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to both the sides within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision No. 163 of 2025 is allowed with the observation mentioned above and stands disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Kamlesh/