Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:16348 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 35 of 2026 Dhaneshwar Yadav, son of Late Bhola Mahto, resident of Bhaltongariya Basti, PO: Kathara PS: Bokaro Thermal, District: Bokaro. ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. --- 02/08.06.2026 Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. This application is directed against the order dated 26.03.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, FTC, Bermo at Tenughat in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 9 of 2025, whereby and whereunder, the application for discharge preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. It has been submitted by Mr. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the fact that the CCL had produced the reply to the query of the Investigating Officer that the petitioner was on duty when the incident had occurred but the learned trial Court has not considered the said aspect. It has further been submitted that there is a difference in the parentage and the name of the petitioner as projected by the prosecution and in fact, the petitioner was not the member of the mob which had caused arson and vandalism at the time when a girl had been run over by a vehicle. Learned counsel therefore submits that the impugned order dated 26.03.2025 be set aside. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made in this application. The allegations reveal that on account of the death of a girl in a road accident, a mob had gathered which soon turned violent and started pelting stones at the police party as a result of which one of the police personnel had suffered serious injuries. It has also been alleged that the mob was led by the petitioner. Learned trial Court, while refusing to accede to the prayer of the petitioner for discharge from BTPS Case No. 50/09, has taken into consideration the alibi produced by the petitioner showing that he was on duty at the time of the incident and though it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not leading the mob but such fact has to be ascertained in course of trial and the learned trial Court has rightly refused to discharge the petitioner vide order dated 26.03.2025. I do not find any reasons to differ with the findings recorded so and this application consequently stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points at an appropriate stage. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) 08.06.2026 S.B. Uploaded on 10.06.2026 -2-