ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, by filing this application, has challenged the order dated 09.12.2015, passed in Cr. Revision No. 40 of 2015 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, whereby he has upheld the order dated 23.04.2015, passed in G.R. No. 885 of 2013, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj, by which the cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and, thereafter, notices have been issued to the accused persons, who were on bail and non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the accused Sahnawaj Ansari and Mithun Ansari (Petitioner herein). Further the petitioner has also challenged the order dated 23.04.2015, passed in G.R. Case No. 885 of 2013 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj. 3. The main contention of the petitioner, in this application, is that the police submitted charge sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, but the petitioner was not sent up for trial. It is contended that in spite of the fact that the petitioner was not sent up for trial, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while taking cognizance of the offences, has issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. His submission is that from perusal of the impugned order, it is quite clear that on what material the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has differed with the police report, has not been mentioned. He submits that in fact there is no material to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order is absolutely bad. 4. The learned Addl. P.P. submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has got jurisdiction to differ with the charge sheet and proceed independently without being influenced by the findings recorded in the charge sheet. He further submits that the Revisional Court has taken note of the aforesaid position and dismissed the revision application and thus, there is no scope to interfere with the impugned orders in an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. He further submits that the Revisional Court has taken note of the aforesaid position and dismissed the revision application and thus, there is no scope to interfere with the impugned orders in an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. After hearing the parties, I find that the charge sheet was submitted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. As per the charge sheet this petitioner alongwith one another was not sent up for trial though other were charge sheeted. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 23.04.2015, took cognizance of the offence and has issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against this petitioner. The Magistrate has held that primafacie case is made out against all the accused persons. The Revisional Court also concurred with the findings of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and has up held the order. 6. It is well within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to differ with the charge sheet and proceed independently by applying his mind. But while doing so, the Magistrate must assign reasons as to why he is deffering with the police report. 7. This Court, in the case of “Ramesh Murmu versus State of Jharkhand (Cr. M.P. No. 1782 of 2016)”, after considering the case of “Bigan Mian @ Siraj Mianversus State of Jharkhand, reported in 2014 (2) JLJR, 95” which relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Nupur Talwar versus Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 188” has held that the Magistrate is duty bound to assign reason as to why he is differing with the police report. 8. In this case, I find that no reason has been assign by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as to why he has differed with the police report specially when the petitioner was not sent up for trial. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid judgment of “Ramesh Murmu” (supra), I allow this application. The impugned order dated 09.12.2015, passed in Cr. Revision No. 40 of 2015 as well as the order dated 23.04.2015, passed in G.R. No. 588 of 2013, are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj to pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law. 9. Thus, this application stands allowed.