Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Kumar Rana @ Sunil Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
2025:JHHC:18445
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 415 of 2025
....
1. Sunil Kumar Rana @ Sunil Kumar, aged about 41 years,
S/o Ram Lochan, R/o Village- Mandai Khurd, Sindur, PO-
Mandai, PO-Sadar, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
2. Vikash Lal Yadav @ Munna Yadav @ Munna Gop, aged
about 46years, S/o Chote Lal, R/o Dipugarha, Behind S. P.
Kothi, PO & PS- Korra, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sikandar Saw, S/o Late Lalendra Saw, R/o Village-
Kudar, PO- Ghargulli, PS- Bagodar, District- Giridih,
Jharkhand ...... Opp. Parties
With
Cr. Revision No. 431 of 2025
....
1. Suraj Yadav, aged about 42 years, S/o Shankar Yadav, R/o
Shanti Nagar, Barkattha, Gaira, Chuglamo, PO & PS-
Barkattha, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
2. Md. Kasim @ Kasim Ansari @ Md. Kashim, aged about
27 years, S/o Abdul Qyayum, R/o Chalkusa, PO & PS- Barhi,
District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand ...... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sikandar Saw, S/o Late Lalendra Saw, R/o Village-
Kudar, PO- Ghargulli, PS- Bagodar, District- Giridih,
Jharkhand ...... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate
Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate ( in both cases)
For the State : Mr. V. S. Sahay, A. P. P.
[Cr. Revision No. 415 of 2025]
Ms. Bandana Singh, A. P. P.
[Cr. Revision No. 431 of 2025]
For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate
(in both cases)
......
1
2025:JHHC:18445
ORAL ORDER IN COURT
04/01.07.2025 Both the Criminal Revisions i.e. Criminal
Revision No. 415 of 2025, (which has been filed on behalf of
the petitioners Sunil Kumar Rana @ Sunil Kumar and Vikash
Lal Yadav @ Munna Yadav @ Munna Gop) and Criminal
Revision No. 431 of 2025, (which has been filed on behalf of
the petitioners Suraj Yadav and Md. Kasim @ Kasim Ansari
@ Md. Kashim) are arising out of the common order dated
10.03.2025 passed by Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, learned
Sessions Judge, Giridih in Mis. Criminal Application No. 1340
of 2024 and Mis. Criminal Application No. 1619 of 2024 and
as such, both the Criminal Revisions are being heard together
and disposed of by the common order.
2. Both Criminal Revisions i.e. Criminal Revision No. 415
of 2025 and Criminal Revision No. 431 of 2025 have been
filed on behalf of all four petitioners challenging the order
dated 10.03.2025 passed by Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, learned
Sessions Judge, Giridih in Mis. Criminal Application No. 1340
of 2024 and Mis. Criminal Application No. 1619 of 2024 in
connection with Bagodar P. S. Case No. 07 of 2024
corresponding to G. R. No. 996 of 2024 [S.T. No. 301 of 2024]
under Sections 341/323/307/ 302/506/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act by which learned
Sessions Judge, Giridih has rejected the discharge petition filed
on behalf of all four petitioners under Section 227/239 of the
Cr.P.C., by observing that prima facie case is made out against
all four petitioners for the offences under Sections
341/323/307/ 302/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
27 of the Arms Act.
2
2025:JHHC:18445
3. It is alleged by the Informant -Sikendar Saw
(i.e. Opposite Party no. 2) that on 09.01.2024 at 6.30 P.M.
while he was in his house, then his bus staff Deepak Pandey
informed on the mobile of his brother Dhaneshwar Sao that his
elder brother Taleshwar Sao has been shot by pistol. Thereafter
he alongwih his brother-Dhaneshwar Sao and nearby villagers
arrived at the road near the place of occurrence and saw that
his elder brother was lying and he had sustained injuries in his
body and thereafter he brought his injured brother by Bolero
Vehicle at Primary Health Centre, Barketta.
It is also alleged that his elder brother informed him at
Barketta that while he was going by Motorcycle from Gharguli
More to his residence, then he was chased by four persons on
two (2) Motorcycle in Dhankitand Road and shot bullet from
pistol from behind and the miscreants had fled away.
It is further alleged that earlier his brother was assaulted
by Vikash Lal Yadav @ Munna Yadav @ Munna Gop (Owner
of Sagar Bus) i.e. the petitioner no. 2 and Sunil Kumar Rana @
Sunil Kumar (Manager of Sagar Bus) i.e. the petitioner no. 1 of
Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2025 on 24.12.2023 for which a
case was instituted in Hazaribagh Sadar Police Station and
both the accused had threatened his brother to withdraw the
case, otherwise he will be killed by shooter. It is further alleged
that two (2) months prior to the occurrence, his brother has also
dispute with Suraj Yadav i.e. the petitioner no. 1 of Criminal
Revision No. 431 of 2025 and Ranjeet (both owner of Gonda
Bus) and Md. Kasim @ Kasim Ansari @ Md. Kashim (Driver
of Bablu Bus) i.e. the petitioner no. 2 of Criminal Revision No.
431 of 2025 and they had also threatened his brother on
06.01.2024 of dire consequences if he continued to ply his bus.
3
2025:JHHC:18445
4. Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for the
petitioners assisted by Mr. Rishu Ranjan, learned counsel in
both the Criminal Revision Applications and Mr. V. S. Sahay
learned counsel for the State in Cr. Revision No. 415 of 2025
and Ms. Bandana Singh, A. P. P. in Cr. Revision No. 431 of
2025 and Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, learned counsel on behalf of
the opposite party no. 2 in both the Criminal Revisions
Applications.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that impugned order passed by the learned Court
below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
It is submitted that the allegations against all the four
petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 415 of 2025 and Criminal
Revision No. 431 of 2025 are false and concocted. It is
submitted that the petitioners have been implicated in this case
on mere suspicion and there is no eye witness of the occurrence
and no incriminating articles have been recovered from the
possessions of these petitioners. It is submitted that the
Informant has not stated in the FIR as to who had assaulted the
Injured-deceased brother of the Informant and the names of
four persons chasing the brother of the Informant by two
Motorcycles have not been disclosed in the FIR. It is submitted
that the petitioners have been implicated on mere suspicion as
they have Bus rivalry business with the deceased-brother of the
Informant for which they have been falsely implicated by the
Police. It is submitted that the alleged video recording of the
statement of the deceased- Taleshwar Sao taken by the
Informant -Sikendar Sao has not been handed over to them
while giving police paper, which is in-complete violation of
Section 207 of the Cr. P. C. It is submitted that charges cannot
4
2025:JHHC:18445
be framed on mere suspicion. It is further submitted that the
statement of witnesses recorded by the IO during investigation
are interested persons and they have named the petitioners on
suspicion only. In support of their contention, learned counsel
for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane
Versus State of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 2 SCC 135 and
in the case of Harishchandra Prasad Mani and Ors. Versus State
of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2007) 15 SCC 494 and
in the case of P.Vijayan Versus State of Kerala and Another
reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398. It is submitted that in view of
above fact, the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Giridih may be set aside and the Criminal
Revision No. 415 of 2025 and Criminal Revision No. 431 of
2025 may be allowed.
6. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the
prayer and has submitted that the impugned order passed by
the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is
required by this Court. It is submitted that witnesses namely
Chandrika Prasad, Ranjeet Ram, Deepak Pandey, Sandeep
Kumar Sao, Thakur Nayak and Uttam Goshwami, whose
statement were recorded at para-8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13
respectively of the case diary have supported the case of the
Informant and have stated that all the petitioners had threatened
the deceased – Taleshwar Sao for not plying the bus, otherwise
he may be killed. It is submitted that para-29 of the case diary
has mentioned regarding the Video Footage of the deceased-
Tarkeshwar Sao, who had named the four petitioners i.e. the
petitioners Sunil Kumar Rana @ Sunil Kumar and Vikash Lal
Yadav @ Munna Yadav @ Munna Gop in Criminal Revision
5
2025:JHHC:18445
No. 415 of 2025 and the petitioners Suraj Yadav and Md.
Kasim @ Kasim Ansari @ Md. Kashim in Criminal Revision
No. 431 of 2025 for causing this offence against him and the
said Video Footage seized vide the Production-cum-Seizure
List by taking certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian
Evidence Act. It is submitted that the deceased- Tarkeshwar
Sao had stated in his Video Footage that all the four petitioners
have managed the shooter for killing the deceased and as such,
the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit
and proper and no interference is required from this Court and
the above Criminal Revision Applications may be dismissed.
7. Perused the records of this case and FIR and the case
diary and the impugned order passed by the learned Court
below and considered the submissions of both the sides.
8. It appears that strong suspicion has been shown against
the four petitioners in the FIR by the Informant -Sikendar Sao
for committing the murder of his deceased brother- Tarkeshwar
Sao.
9. It appears that witnesses namely Chandrika Prasad,
Ranjeet Ram, Deepak Pandey, Sandeep Kumar Sao, Thakur
Nayak and Uttam Goshwami, whose statements have been
recorded at para-8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 respectively of the case
diary have supported the allegation against the petitioners.
10. It also appears from para-50 of the case diary i.e. the
statement of Kanchan Kumari i.e. the wife of the deceased –
Taleshwar Sao that she is also alleged that her deceased
husband was perplexed due to threaten given by the petitioners,
otherwise he will be killed.
11. It further appears that para-29 of the case diary
contains the description of Video Footage of Mobile Phone of
6
2025:JHHC:18445
the Informant-Sikandar Sao, which is said to be statement of
the deceased- Taleshwar Sao taking the name of the four
petitioners and for which one certificate was also given by the
Informant -Sikandar Sao under Section 65-B of the Indian
Evidence Act and the said mobile footage was given to the I.O
in 32 GB Pen Drive of Sand Disk Company (Sand Disk Cruiser
Blade) alongwith production- cum-seizure list on 12.01.2002.
12. It has been held that in the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane
Versus State of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 2 SCC 135 at
paragraph No.12 as follows:-
“Para-12:-. Now the next question is whether a prima facie
case has been made out against the appellant. In exercising
powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering
the question of framing the charges under the said section has
the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the
limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie
case against the accused has been made out; where the
materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion
against the accused which has not been properly explained the
court will be fully justified in framing a charge and
proceeding with the trial; by and large if two views are
equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence
produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but
not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully
justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising
jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a
mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and
the documents produced before the court but should not make
a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and
weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial (see Union7
2025:JHHC:18445of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal ).”
13. It has been held that in the case of Harishchandra Prasad
Mani and Ors. Versus State of Jharkhand and Another reported
in (2007) 15 SCC 494 at paragraph nos. 13 and 14 as follows:-
“Para-13:- In the present case, there is not even an iota of
material indicating the guilt of the accused persons. It is true
that at the stage of taking cognizance adequacy of evidence
will not be seen by the court, but there has to be at least some
material implicating the accused, and cognizance cannot be
taken merely on the basis of suspicion as it appears to have
been done in the present case. To take a contrary view would
only lead to harassment of people.
Para-14:- No doubt, it has been alleged in the complaint that
the wife of the deceased was having an affair with Accused 2,
but this itself is only a suspicion and cannot be the basis of a
conviction. Similarly, the fact that the in-laws of the deceased
did not take part in his cremation is not evidence to show their
guilt.”
14. It appears that the judgments rendered in the case of
Dilawar Balu Kurane Versus State of Maharashtra reported in
(2002) 2 SCC 135 and in the case of Harishchandra Prasad
Mani and Ors. Versus State of Jharkhand and Another reported
in (2007) 15 SCC 494 are not applicable on the facts and in the
circumstances of these cases as there is grave suspicion against
the petitioners for causing death of the deceased Tarkeshwar
Sao due to rivalry in bus plying. It is well settled law that
enmity cuts both the ways.
15. It has been held that in the case of P.Vijayan Versus
State of Kerala and Another reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398 at
paragraph no. 15 as follows:-
“Para-15:- In a recent decision, in Soma
Chakravarty v. State [(2007) 5 SCC 403 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 514] ,
8
2025:JHHC:18445
this Court has held that: (SCC p. 403d-f)
“The settled legal position is that if on the basis of material on
record the court could form an opinion that the accused might have
committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the
time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on
record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by
the prosecution has to be accepted as true … Before framing a
charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed
on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by
the accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the accused committed
the offence, can only be decided in the trial.
(Para 10)
* * *
Charge may although be directed to be framed when there exists a
strong suspicion but it is also trite that the court must come to a
prima facie finding that there exist some materials therefor.
Suspicion alone, without anything more, cannot form the basis
therefor or held to be sufficient for framing charge.
(Para 19)”
(emphasis in original)
16. It also appears that the judgment rendered in the case of
P.Vijayan Versus State of Kerala and Another reported in (2010)
2 SCC 398 is also not applicable on the facts and in the
circumstances of these cases, rather it supports the case of the
State as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that at the stage of
framing of charges the probative value of the material on record
cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the
prosecution has to be accepted as true.
17. At this stage, this Court refrains itself from giving any
observation in view of the stand taken by the petitioners as it
may prejudice the case of the petitioners. The learned Court
below has rightly exercised its discretion by passing the order
9
2025:JHHC:18445
and if detailed discussion is made with regard to the stand of
the State counsel or the learned counsel for the petitioners, it
may affect the merit of the trial.
18. It is well settled from a catena of decisions that
meticulous examination of statement of witnesses has not to be
done at the stage of framing of charges.
19. It is also well settled that the defence of the accused
person cannot be looked into at the stage of framing of charges.
20. It has been held in the case of Anup Kumar Lakhotia Vs.
The Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2022 (1) JLJR page 127 and Para-25 of the said
judgment is as follows:
“Para-25:- The learned court below, while considering the
petition for discharge considered the scope of Section 227 of
Cr. P. C. and recorded that hearing the submissions of the
accused as postulated by Section 227 means hearing the
submissions of the accused on the record of the case as filed
by the prosecution and documents submitted therewith and
nothing more. The expression ‘hearing the submissions of the
accused’ cannot mean opportunity to file material is to be
granted to the accused. At the stage of framing of charge
hearing the submissions of the accused has to be confined to
the material produced by the police.”
21. It has been held that in the case of State By The
Inspector Of Police, Chennai vs. S. Selvi and Another reported
in 2018 (13) SCC 455 at paragraph No.10 as follows:-
“Para-10:- If on the basis of the material on record, the Court
would form prima facie opinion that the accused might have
committed the offence, it can frame charge, though for
conviction it is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of10
2025:JHHC:18445framing of charges, the probative value of the material on record
has to be gone into and the Court is not expected to go deep into
the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant
conviction. The Court is required to evaluate the material on
record at the stage of Sections 227 or 239 of the Code, as the
case may be, only with a view to find out if the facts emerging
therefrom taken at the face value discloses the existence of all
the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. It is trite that at
the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the
Court has to proceed with the presumption that materials
brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate such
material with a view to find out whether the facts emerging
therefrom taken at their face value disclose existence of the
ingredients of the offence.”
22. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of M. E. Shivalingamurthy Versus Central Bureau of
Investigation, Bengaluru reported in (2020) 2 SCC 768 at
para17.3, 17.6 and 18 as follows:-
“Para-17.3:-The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to
find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.
Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the police
or the documents produced before the Court.
Para-17.6:- The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the
total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before
the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on.
This, however, would not entitle the court make a roving inquiry
into the pros and cons.
Para-18:- The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at
the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section
227 CrPC (see State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar). The
expression. “the record of the case”, used in Section 227 CrPC,
is to be understood as the documents and the articles, if any.
produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right11
2025:JHHC:18445to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing
of the charge. At the stage of framing of the charge. the
submission of the accused is to be confined to the material
produced by the police (see State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath
Padhi).”
23. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Ors
and in the case of Kanta Devi Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and
Ors. reported in (2020) 2 SCC 290 at para-39 as follows:-
“Para-39:- The court while considering the question of
framing charges under Section 227 CrPC has the power to sift
and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the
accused. The test to determine prima facie case would depend
upon the facts of each case. If the material placed before the
court discloses grave suspicion against the accused, which has
not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in
framing charges and proceeding with the trial. The probative
value of the evidence brought on record cannot be gone into at
the stage of framing charges. The court is required to evaluate
the material and documents on record with a view to find out if
the facts emerging there from taken at their face value disclose
the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage,
there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter, the evidence is not to be weighed as if a trial is being
conducted. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh where it has been held that at the
stage of framing charges under Sections 227 or 228 Cr.P.C., if
there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that
there is ground for presuming that the accused had committed
the offence, then the court should proceed with the trial.
24. So far as the judgements cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioners in the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane
12
2025:JHHC:18445
Versus State of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 2 SCC 135 and
in the case of P.Vijayan Versus State of Kerala and Another
reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398 are concerned, the same is not
applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case as in the
above cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court had allowed the
discharge petition on the ground that the accused can be
discharged, if some suspicion is found, but not in the case of
grave suspicion against the accused persons. So far the
judgment rendered in the case of Harishchandra Prasad Mani
and Ors. Versus State of Jharkhand and Another reported in
(2007) 15 SCC 494 is concerned, the same is not applicable in
the facts and circumstances of this case as the above judgment
has been rendered in the case on the point of order taking
cognizance against the accused persons.
25. So far as the grievances of the petitioners for not
supplying of Video Footage of Mobile Phone is concerned, the
same has to be complied with because the prosecution has
itself stated in the case diary at para-29 that the Informant had
furnished the video footage of Mobile Phone of the Informant
wherein the deceased – Taleshwar Sao was taking the name of
the petitioners and the same has to be supplied to the
petitioners for proper compliance of Section 207 of the Cr. P.
C. However, the said Video Footage is relied by the State and
as such, the copy of the same has to be furnished to the accused
persons i.e. the petitioners.
26. Thus in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India and also considering the gravity of
offence, this Court finds that the Court below has committed
no illegality by passing the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by
Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, learned Sessions Judge, Giridih in
13
2025:JHHC:18445
Mis. Criminal Application No. 1340 of 2024 and Mis. Criminal
Application No. 1619 of 2024 in connection with Bagodar P. S.
Case No. 07 of 2024 corresponding to G. R. No. 996 of 2024
[S.T. No. 301 of 2024] by rejecting the petition for discharge
filed on behalf of the petitioners.
27. Considering the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, it is evident that the both Criminal Revisions i.e. Criminal
Revision No. 415 of 2025 and Criminal Revision No. 431 of
2025 are devoid of merit and accordingly, the Criminal
Revision No. 415 of 2025 and Criminal Revision No. 431 of
2025 are dismissed but without any costs.
28. However, learned Court below is directed to furnish the
Video Footage of Mobile Phone to the petitioners, if not given
so far with the police papers and it is the duty of the learned
Trial Court to ensure to supply of the Video Footage of the
mobile as mentioned at para- 20 of the case diary to the
petitioners.
29. Thus, both Criminal Revisions i.e. Criminal Revision
No. 415 of 2025 and Criminal Revision No. 431 of 2025 are
dismissed with the above observations.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/N.A.F.R.
14