JUDGMENT : The petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 16.07.2016. 2. In Tatisilway P.S. Case No. 56 of 2014 which was registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 353 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act three accused namely, Ajay Singh, Naresh Singh @ Butru and Sunil Tirkey were sent up for trial. On 12.02.2015 the discharge application filed by Naresh Singh and Sunil Tirkey was dismissed and charges were framed against all three accused vide order dated 22.02.2016. The records reveal that the prosecution examined one witness on 05.05.2016 but by that time in Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2016 this Court interfered with the order dated 20.11.2015 and the matter was remitted back to the trial Judge. Thereafter an application under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the accused Ajay Singh. The discharge application dated 12.02.2015 filed by the present petitioners was also considered alongwith the discharge application filed by co-accused Ajay Singh. 3. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi has observed in the order dated 16.07.2016 that at the time of hearing of Criminal Revision No.33 of 2016 the accused did not disclose to the Hon'ble High Court that by that time one prosecution witness was already examined. There is no challenge by the petitioners in the present criminal revision petition to the aforesaid observation of the learned trial Judge. A copy of the order dated 11.05.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2016 has been placed on record vide Annexure-7 at page 32 of the paper book. 4. A glance at the order dated 11.05.2016 also does not disclose that the stage of the trial was made known to the Hon'ble Judge in the criminal revision petition. 5. In the order dated 16.07.2016, the learned trial Judge has observed as under: “Next there is case that the accused persons fired at police party. Certainly it is an attempt to murder and comes within the purview of section 307 of IPC. Though there is no injury report since none of the police personnel sustained any injury, but that in itself will not exonerate the accused persons from the charge u/s 307 of IPC. On careful perusal of record it appears that all the witnesses-the members of police party-the most probable witnesses, duly supported the prosecution case. Though there is no injury report since none of the police personnel sustained any injury, but that in itself will not exonerate the accused persons from the charge u/s 307 of IPC. On careful perusal of record it appears that all the witnesses-the members of police party-the most probable witnesses, duly supported the prosecution case. There are confessional statement of the accused persons also. Evidentiary value of same will be looked into at the time of trial. There are also mention in the case diary that all the above accused persons are veteran criminals having several cases of dacoity, murder and Arms Act pending against them.” 6. Mr. Ashok Kumar, the learned APP has furnished information regarding stage of the trial. 7. According to the learned APP now five witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution and the next date fixed in the trial is 29.04.2021. 8. As noticed hereinabove, discharge applications were filed by the accused under section 227 CrPC and this is not the case of the accused that no legally admissible evidence has been produced by the prosecution during the trial and therefore they deserve to be discharged. 9. Having examined the materials on record from this prospective, I find no merit in this criminal revision petition and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 1053 of 2016 is dismissed. 10. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the Court concerned through 'FAX'.