Jharkhand High Court
Shankar Prasad Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 July, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:21031
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No.742 of 2025
-----
Shankar Prasad Yadav, s/o Nanulal Prasad, r/o village Patel Chowk
Jalsar Road, Deoghar, PO and PS Deogher, District Deoghar,
Jharkhand ... Petitioner(s).
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Dayaram, s/o Muneshwar Ram, Junior Engineer, Punasi Dam
Division Jasidih, PO and PS Jasidih, District Deoghar, Jharkhand at
present r/o village Sohgada, PO Shivpur, PS Kadi, District Garhwa,
Jharkhand ... Opposite Party(s).
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
——
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
For the Opp. Party(s) : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, Advocate
………
02 /30.07.2025: Heard the parties.
2. The prayer in this application is for setting aside the order
dated 10.03.2025 passed in MCA No. 101 of 2025 arising out of
S.T. Case No. 04 of 2025 (Mohanpur PS Case No. 72 of 2018)
registered for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 343,
307, 353, 385, 387, 120(B), 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar
whereby the petitioner’s prayer for discharging him from the
present case has been rejected and was directed to appear before
the concerned Court for framing of charge.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner including the
others constituted unlawful assembly and have obstructed the
construction of Punasi Dam and were demanding money by way
of extortion.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence on that day
rather he was at Ranchi and had stayed in the Hotel Janta. Thus
no charge can be framed against him.
5. From the argument of the petitioner, I find that he has
raised a plea of alibi in the petition for discharge, in his defence.
1
2025:JHHC:21031
All the points he has raised needs to be proved by him by
adducing evidence. This can only be done by the petitioner at the
stage of evidence and not at the stage of discharge. Further, I find
that in the impugned order, the learned court observed that there
is sufficient material in paragraph nos. 3, 7 and 8 of the case
diary against the petitioner.
6. Thus, I find no illegality in the impugned order.
7. This criminal revision is dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Tanuj/
2