Jharkhand High Court
Cr.A(SJ)/712/2026 of RADHESHYAM RAI ALIAS RAY Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 10 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 712 of 2026 ------ 1. Radheshyam Rai @ Ray, aged about 47 years, S/o Late Dulal Rai @ Dular Rai 2. Kamlesh Rai @ Ray, aged about 50 years, S/o Tarni Rai 3. Shiv Narayan Rai @ Shivnath Ray, aged about 40 years, S/o Late Fuleshwar Rai @
2026:JHHC:27216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 712 of 2026
------
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Radheshyam Rai @ Ray, aged about 47 years, S/o Late Dulal Rai @ Dular Rai
2. Kamlesh Rai @ Ray, aged about 50 years, S/o Tarni Rai
3. Shiv Narayan Rai @ Shivnath Ray, aged about 40 years, S/o Late Fuleshwar Rai @ Kuleshwar Ray
4. Paro Devi, aged about 39 years, W/o Kamlesh Rai
5. Kalwati Devi @ Kalawati Devi, aged about 47 years, W/o Radheshyam Rai
6. Mukesh Yadav, aged about 23 years, S/o Dinanath Yadav @ Dinanath Mahto
7. Mithilesh Yadav, aged about 27 years, S/o Dinanath Yadav @ Dinanath Mahto
8. Bhim Mahto, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Pyari Mahto
9. Dilip Mahto, aged about 44 years, S/o Late Pyari Mahto
10. Tarni Rai @ Ray, aged about 73 years, S/o Late Harihar Rai
11. Diwakar Rai @ Ray, aged about 27 years, S/o Henraj Rai @ Hemraj Rai All are resident of village-Pipra, P.O. & P.S. Palajori, District-Deoghar
.... .... …. Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Padmavati Devi, W/o Basant Mirdha, R/o Village-Pipra, P.O. & P.S.- Palajori, Dist-Deoghar
.... .... .... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Pran Pranay, Adv.
For the State
: Mr. Achinto Sen, A.P.P.
------
Order No.02/Dated : 10.09.2026
1. On instruction of the clients, learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw the present appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the State has raised no objection.
3. Permission is accorded.
4. Accordingly, this appeal is, hereby, dismissed as withdrawn.
5. Interlocutory application being I.A. No. 10138 of 2026, in limitation matter also stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) 10.09.2026 Pawan/ Uploaded on 11.09.2026