2026:JHHC:4507-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1534 of 2025 Rupesh Kumar Singh, S/o Arvind Prasad Singh, A/P R/o Vill- Binjhar, P.O.- Hesla, P.S.- Giddi, Dist.- Ramgarh, permanent R/o Vill- Saroni, P.S.- Shahkund, Dist.- Bhagalpur (Bihar). --- --- Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Adv. For the State : A.P.P. --- 05/10.02.2026 Heard Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24-09-2025 passed in S.T. Case No. 65/2023 arising out of Jageshwar Bihar P.S. Case No. 16/2022 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bermo at Tenughat, Bokaro, whereby and whereunder, the application for discharge preferred by the appellant under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. The prosecution case reveals that on an information received by the Police that some extremists are roaming in the area who are likely to commit an offence, a search operation was conducted and when the Police team reached Lugu Pahadi near Daka Saram village, firing was made by the extremists upon the Police party which was retaliated and after some time, the extremists managed to flee away. On a search conducted at the place of occurrence, cash and various other incriminating articles were recovered. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Jageshwar Bihar P.S. Case No. 16/2022 was instituted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 353 IPC, Section 27 Arms Act, 2026:JHHC:4507-DB 2 Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, Sections 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 353, 120B IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. On submission of charge sheet, cognizance was taken by the learned A.C.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 353, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act vide order dated 15-12-2022. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as S.T. No. 65/2023. The appellant had filed an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge on 07-03-2025 which, however, was rejected vide order dated 24-09-2025 and which is the order impugned to the present appeal. 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant that the name of the appellant had figured on the confessional statement of a co- accused as well as the self-confession of the appellant. Nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of the appellant and the appellant was not even put on Test Identification Parade. Mr. Singh has submitted that though charge sheet was not submitted under Section 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, but without there being any appropriate reasonings and materials in support thereof, the discharge application was rejected vide the impugned order dated 24-09-2025 indicating therein that there is sufficient material against the appellant under Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and under Section 10/13 of the 2026:JHHC:4507-DB 3 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. It has been submitted that no prior sanction was taken and, therefore, the learned trial court has committed an error in giving a finding that sufficient materials under the said provisions are available against the appellant. It has also been submitted that the order dated 24-09-2025 is devoid of any reasons and there being absence of any incriminating material against the appellant, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the appellant be discharged from the said criminal case. 5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made in this application and has submitted that the learned trial court has considered each aspect of the matter and after going through the case diary, has come to a conclusion that sufficient material is available on record against the appellant for framing charge under Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act as also under Section 10/13 of the UA(P) Act apart from the other provisions against which the appellant has already been found to be involved as per the charge sheet. It has also been submitted that it would be premature to look into the materials and conduct a mini trial and since the learned trial court has appropriately considered and has given definite reasons for coming to such finding, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the various affidavits filed by them. 7. It is an admitted fact that though charge sheet was not submitted under Section 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and cognizance was also not taken of the said offences and there being absence of any sanction order on record, the learned trial court has erred in coming to a conclusion that 2026:JHHC:4507-DB 4 sufficient material is available on record to proceed further against the appellant under Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and under Section 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. What transpires from a perusal of the impugned order dated 24-09-2025 is the confessional statement of the co-accused and the confessional statement of the appellant as well which has been recorded in para 109 of the case diary and there does not seem to be any other material or any material of substance excluding the confessional statements so as to come to a finding that offences are made out against the appellant under Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Moreover, as we have noted above, there is no sanction for prosecution which is an admitted fact and, in such circumstances, therefore, such finding given by the learned trial court appears to be an erroneous one. So far as the claim of discharge made by the appellant with respect to the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 353, 120B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act are concerned, there appears to be sufficient materials on account of the confessional statements as well as the recovery of some incriminating articles from the place of occurrence. At the stage of discharge, there cannot be a sifting of evidence or conducting a mini trial in coming to a conclusion and from what appears from the impugned order as well as the materials on record, the learned trial court was justified in refusing to discharge the appellant far as the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 353, 120B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act are concerned. 8. On consideration of the aforesaid facts, we hereby quash and set aside that part of the impugned order dated 24.09.2025 whereby the learned trial court has recorded the 2026:JHHC:4507-DB 5 finding that there are sufficient materials against the appellant under Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and under Section 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. However, so far as the other part of the order by which the prayer for discharge of the appellant for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 353, 120B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act are concerned, we do not find any reason to interfere in the same and consequently, this appeal stands disposed of. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated- 10th February, 2026. Preet/- Uploaded on: 18 /02/2026.