IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1500 of 2009 1. Zahiruddin Ansari. 2. Sageer Ansari. 3. Nazeer Ansari. 4. Mohaudin Ansari, all sons of late Lateef Ansari. 5. Saimul Nisha, daughter of Late Lateef Ansari. 6. Jahid Ansari, son of Wahid Ansari. 7. Mobin Ansari, son of Kallu Ansari. 8. Meena Khatoon, wife of Jahid Ansari (All are residents of village-Masarhi, P.S.-Ramgarh, District- Kaimur) ………….Petitioners Versus The State of Bihar ……..Opposite Party ----------- 3. 14.11.2011 The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 17.07.2009 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua in S.T.No.62/2009 by which the petition dated 18.03.2009 filed by the petitioners under Section 228 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in order to arrest the accused of Ramgarh P.S. Case No.100/2007, a team comprising of the informant and other constables arrived at the petitioners’ house at village-Masarhi, P.S.- Ramgarh on 2.07.2007. As soon as the police arrived at the petitioners’ house, the petitioner Zahiruddin Ansari was hiding himself behind the door of the house, struck a 2 Bhala blow which hit Havldar am Bachan Singh onhis head leading to a bleeding injury. Thereafter, the police officers accompanying with the informant and other members of the armed force tried to enter the house in order to make arrest, petitioners Jahid Ansari and Mobin Ansari started brandishing Farsa (a sharp cutting weapon), whereas, the other petitioners and many other unidentified men and women climbed on the roofs and started pelting bricks and stones upon the police as a result of which both the Chowkidars and other members of the armed force suffered injury and making use of the situation all the accused fled away. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the court of sessions vide S.Tr.No.62/2009. The petitioners filed a petition for discharge under Section 307 of the I.P.C. which has been rejected by the impugned order. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that injuries found on the person are superficial and secondly, the accused has no intention to kill the police party. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that it appears from the F.I.R. 3 and materials on the record that the accused had intention to kill the police personnel, who had gone at the place of occurrence to arrest the accused in another case i.e. Ramgarh P.S. Case No.100/2007. He has further submitted that the petitioners had intention to murder the police personnel. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the materials on the record, it appears that the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge has considered the injury report as well as the other materials on the record and has found that there is clear cut case for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. besides other offences under the I.P.C. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)