Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:16323 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 60 of 2026 1. Uday Pandey 2. Shivdutt Pandey @ Shivdutt Kumar 3. Pushpraj @ Amit Pandey 4. Laxmi Devi ... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate Mr. Sanjuay Kumar Saw, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, APP --- Order No. 02 Dated 08th June, 2026 Heard the learned counsel for the respective sides. This application is directed against the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Hazaribag in Misc. Criminal Application No. 985 of 2025 arising out of Sessions Trial No. 395 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the application for discharge preferred by the petitioner u/s 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. It has been alleged that on 18.06.2018, the informant had gone to his sister’s house where his sister, brother-in-law, parents were present. It has been alleged that all of a sudden, the named accused persons as well as 7-8 other persons had entered into the house of the sister of the informant variously armed with knife, Bhujali, rod and Lathi and had misbehaved with his sister. On an objection, the accused persons had committed assault upon the informant, his sister and his brother-in-law and others by means of rod due to which they had sustained injuries. The injured persons were brought to Sadar Hospital for treatment by their neighbours from where they were referred to RIMS, Ranchi for better treatment. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Katkamdag P.S. Case No. 73 of 2018 was instituted u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and when the cognizance was taken, the petitioners had challenged the same before this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 348 of 2020. Vide order dated 17.02.2020, the order taking cognizance was quashed and set aside with a direction to the learned court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Consequent to the same, a fresh order was passed and cognizance was taken. The petitioners had filed an application for discharge u/s 227 Cr.P.C. which however was rejected on 27.11.2025 and which is the order impugned in the present application. Submission has been advanced by Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner that he is confining his prayer only with respect to the fact that no case u/s 307 and 326 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners, but this contention has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. It has been submitted that arising out of the same incident, a counter case was lodged from the side of the petitioners and several of the petitioners had also sustained grievous injuries. Learned counsel submits that in the counter case also charge sheet has been submitted and since in both the cases, the charge sheet has been submitted, the learned trial court should have been circumspect in considering the entire facets of the case in their totality. It has further been submitted that there is a land dispute between the parties and in fact the petitioners are the owners of the house in question, which has been sought to be usurped by the informant party. It has been submitted that the entire nature of allegation would not suggest that the petitioners were armed with dangerous weapons or they had an intention to commit the murder of the informant party and in such circumstances, no case u/s 307 and 326 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners. Learned APP has opposed the prayer made in this application. It appears from a perusal of the impugned order dated 27.11.2025 that the learned trial court has considered the statement of the witnesses in the case diary and it also appears that several persons from the side of the informant had sustained injuries. In fact, one of the members of the informant party had sustained a grievous injury on the head and had received six stiches on her head which is a vital part of the body. Apart from the same, there are other injured also from the side of the informant party. The entire of gamut of allegations levelled by the informant would suggest that the petitioners were variously Page-2 armed with rods, Bhujali, knife and Lathi and had committed a concerted assault upon the informant party which had resulted in injuries suffered by them. The learned trial court has taken into consideration the manner of assault as well as the nature of injuries while coming to a conclusion that a case u/s 307 and 326 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners. The learned trial court has also rightly observed that at the time of considering the discharge application, there is no necessity of a meticulous examination of the evidence on record to come to a conclusion. Since on consideration of nature of allegation and entire facts and circumstances of the case, apart from the other sections a case u/s 307 and 326 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners which has rightly been considered by the learned trial court, I am not inclined to entertain this application, which accordingly stands disposed of. However, it is made clear that any observation made in this order would not prejudice the learned trial court. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J.) 08.06.2026 MK Page-3