ABDUL SALMAN KHAN ALIAS SALMAN KHAN v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY
W.P.(Cr.)/593/2025 · 2025-10-07
Rajesh Kumar, Sujit Narayan Prasad
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 34735 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 34735 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:JHHC:30892-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) (D.B.) No. 593 of 2025 ---- Abdul Salman Khan @ Salman Khan, aged about 29 years, son of Abdul Shamim Khan, resident of Road No.3, Q.No.26, L-4, Agrico, P.O.-Agrico, P.S.-Sitaramdera, Town- Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum.
… … Petitioner
versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary having it office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District.- Ranchi.
2. Additional Secretary, Department of Home, Prison & Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S-Jagarnathpur, District - Ranchi.
3. The District Magistrate -Cum- Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S.- Bistupur, Town-Jamshedpur District - East Singhbhum.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S.- Sakchi, Town- Jamshedpur, District - East Singhbhum.
… … Respondent -------
CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, AC to AAG II --------
Order No. 03 : Dated 7th October, 2025
1. At the outset, it has been pointed out that in order dated 4th September, 2025, due to typographical mistake the nomenclature of the case has wrongly been mentioned as ‘W.P.(C)’ in place of W.P.(Cr.).
2. Considering the typographical error, as crept up in order dated 4th September, 2025 in nomenclature of the case, the same is modified by replacing ‘‘W.P.(C)’ to ‘W.P.(Cr.)’. Rest of the order dated 4th September, 2025 shall remain intact.
2025:JHHC:30892-DB
3. Accordingly, order dated 4th September, 2025 is modified to the extent, as indicated hereinabove.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the period of detention has already expired and further detention order has been issued for detention of the petitioner, which the petitioner wants to challenge by filing fresh writ petition.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in view thereof wants to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to challenge fresh detention order.
6. In view of such submission, the instant writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the fresh detention order, if any, by filing appropriate application before appropriate forum.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) 7th October, 2025 Alankar/