2026:JHHC:19362 Cr. Rev. No.926 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 926 of 2023 --------- Nitesh Tiwary @ Sonu Tiwary @ Nitish Kumar Tiwary, aged about 49 years, son of Late Ram Lakhan Tiwary, Resident of village-Boreya, P.O. and Police Station-Kanke, District-Ranchi ……Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nawin Kumar Singh, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate --------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORDERS ----------- CAV On 18/06/2026 Pronounce On 02/ 07/2026 1. Heard Md. A.K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. assisted with Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the informant. 2. Instant criminal revision is directed against the order dated 17.06.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in G.R. No.2932 of 2021, whereby and whereunder the application for discharge filed under section 239 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner has been rejected. Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that when the informant, Rinki Kumari was going to worship on 04.09.2021 at about 8:30 am and as she was about to reach her office, she was intercepted by Hussain Ansari and his wife and abused. Upon 2026:JHHC:19362 Cr. Rev. No.926 of 2023 2 protest, the accused persons told her to remove the truck standing outside her go-down immediately otherwise, she has to face dire consequences. The informant returned to her home and informed her husband and brother (Abhishek) about the above incident and again came to the place of occurrence and saw that Sonu Tiwari, Ritesh Tiwari, Shankar Tiwari, Mini Tiwari, Ashish Tiwari, Hussain Ansari and his wife along with 10-15 persons of village, Boreya armed with lathi, danda, sword were standing there and started abusing and threatening to kill them and attacked on the husband, brother of the informant and brother- in-law of her brother entering into the premises. It is further alleged that the brother of the informant, Abhishek brought a licensee rifle from the house then, the accused persons snatched the rifle from him and on instigation of Sonu Tiwari, Ritesh Tiwari fired upon Abhishek, who died. Thereafter, the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. 4. On the basis of above information, Kanke P.S. Case No.201 of 2021 was registered for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 302, 504, 506 and 452 of Indian Penal Code and section 27 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet 2026:JHHC:19362 Cr. Rev. No.926 of 2023 3 was submitted under sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 341, 323, 427, 504 and 506 of IPC against the petitioner. 5. It is pertinent to mention that for the same occurrence, another case i.e. Kanke P.S. Case No.200 of 2021 was also registered for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and section 27 of Arms Act on the written report of Sumit Tiwari @ Mini Tiwari, wherein after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 286, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and sections 27/30 of Arms Act against Shailendra Kumar, Chhotu Singh, Abhishek Singh(since deceased), Piyus @ Golu, Balaji @ Pushkar, Ravi, Dilip and 4-5 other unknown persons. 6. The petitioner filed an application for his discharge after submission of charge-sheet and hearing on the point of charge, which has been rejected by learned trial court and assailed in this revision. Submission on behalf of Petitioner 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the FIR was registered in this case for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 302, 504, 506 and 452 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act, but after thorough investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 341, 323, 427, 504 2026:JHHC:19362 Cr. Rev. No.926 of 2023 4 and 506 of IPC. It is further submitted that entire allegation as depicted in the FIR are false and fabricated story and suffers from concealment of the facts behind the death of the deceased, Abhishek. It is submitted that although the petitioner was present in the mob but there is no iota of evidence that he was involved in the alleged incident rather he was pacifying the matter between the parties. Learned trial court has also failed to consider the description of CCTV footage mentioned in the case diary wherein the accused persons bearing rifles and other arms have been seen except the petitioner. Therefore, mere presence of petitioner does not constitute any offence against him to be proceeded in this case for facing trial. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and this revision may be allowed. Submission on behalf of State and Informant 8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel appearing for informant controverting the aforesaid argument has submitted that the presence and participation of the petitioner in the alleged offence has been found in the CCTV footage. Even mere presence of the petitioner with the knowledge of the common object of the unlawful assembly and being member of unlawful assembly with such knowledge is also punishable offence. Therefore, the plea of the learned counsel for 2026:JHHC:19362 Cr. Rev. No.926 of 2023 5 the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration at the present stage of proceeding. Learned trial court has considered overall materials at length while passing the impugned order and also relied upon several judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court as guidelines while rejecting the application for discharge of petitioner, which suffers from no error of law calling for any interference in this revision. Hence, this revision is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 9. I have gone through the impugned order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side and also apprised with the materials available on record. It appears that the allegation appearing in both cases arising out of the same occurrence has been considered at length by learned trial court. In the CCTV footage, the presence of petitioner has also been shown as a member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly where the alleged occurrence has taken place. The plea taken by the petitioner and the grounds for discharge appear to be a contested question of facts to be decided at the time of trial on the basis of evidence adduced in this case. Therefore, considering the submission of the parties, I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the impugned order. 2026:JHHC:19362 Cr. Rev. No.926 of 2023 6 10. Accordingly, this revision appears to be devoid of merits, which stands dismissed. 11. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Date: 02 07/2026 Pappu/-N.A.F.R. Uploaded On:-03/07/2026