2026:JHHC:14671 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.401 of 2019 1. Ranjana Mandal, Aged about 30 years, D/o Late Anup Mandal; 2. Anjana Mandal, Aged about 28 years, D/o Late Anup Mandal; All are R/o Village Mahajantoli, P.O. & P.S. Rajmahal, District Sahibganj (Jharkhand). … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Pratima Mandal, W/o Dalim Mandal, R/o Village Mahajantoli, P.O. & P.S. Rajmahal, District Sahibganj (Jharkhand) … Opp. Parties Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioners : Mr. Rishi Ranjan Vats, Adv. For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar No.2, A.P.P. Order No.06/Dated- 13.05.2026 1. The present criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15.03.2019, whereby and whereunder the application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. for discharging the petitioners, has been rejected by learned S.D.J.M., Rajmahal in G.R. Case 651 of 2016. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that on the date of occurrence, petitioners were not present who happens to be Constables and were posted in Godda District. The alleged occurrence has taken place on 03.09.2016 at Rajmahal while the petitioners were on duty at Godda. The learned Trial Court has not taken entire materials collected during investigation which shows that no offence under Section 341, 323, 504/34 of the I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners. It is further submitted that both the parties are under litigating terms and this case was lodged due to enmity. Title case is also pending between the parties. Therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the above contention and submitted that the defence of the petitioners cannot be considered at the time of hearing on the charge and cannot furnish a ground for discharge which has to be substantiated during trial of the case. Hence, this revision has no merits and fit to be dismissed. 2026:JHHC:14671 4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and after going through the impugned order, it appears that the petitioners have taken their probable defence which has to be taken during trial of the case as defence. The probable defence of the petitioners cannot be taken into account at this stage of the proceeding. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and no merits in this revision which stands dismissed. 5. Pending I.A.s, if any, stand disposed of. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Dated: 13th May, 2026 Sachin/ Uploaded On: 15/05/2026