Jharkhand High Court
Cr.M.P./2555/2026 of SRICHAND MURMU Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 3 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 2555 of 2026 ------- Srichand Murmu, aged about 26 years, son of Ballu Murmu, resident of Bodbandh, Manjhi Tola, P.O. Borbandh, P.S. Barhait, District Sahibganj. ..... …. Petitioner (s) Versus The State of Jharkhand
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.
( 2026:JHHC:26677-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No. 2555 of 2026
-------
Srichand Murmu, aged about 26 years, son of Ballu Murmu, resident of Bodbandh, Manjhi Tola, P.O. Borbandh, P.S. Barhait, District Sahibganj.
..... ….
Petitioner (s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.…. …. Opp. Party
--------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
Order No. 02/ Dated 03.09.2026
Heard Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P. P. learned counsel for the State.
In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sahibganj in connection with Barhait P.S. Case No. 104/2024, whereby and whereunder, the proclamation under Section 82 Cr. P.C has been ordered to be issued against the petitioner.
Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 22.09.2025 does not reflect the subjective satisfaction and the order being cryptic in nature deserves to be set aside.
It appears that though the order was passed on 22.09.2025 directing the concerned Officer In-charge to follow the various directions enumerated in the said order, but it appears that the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C was received by the concerned Officer In-charge on 06.10.2025. It further appears from perusal of the order dated 22.09.2025 that the details which are necessary prior to issuance of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has not at all been recorded by the learned Trial Court. In absence of there being any subjective satisfaction and the order is cryptic being nature without assigning appropriate reasons, the same is accordingly quashed and set aside.
This criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Dated 03/09/2026 BS/-