RUKHMANI DEVI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY STATE OF JHARKHAND
W.P.(Cr.)/170/2025 · 2025-03-11
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Sujit Narayan Prasad
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7539 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7539 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) (Hb) (D.B.) No. 170 of 2025 ----- Rukhmani Devi, aged about 77 years, W/o Yugeshar Ganjhu, R/o Village Kalyanpur, Herum, Lawalong, P.O. and P.S. Lawalong, Dist. Chatra, Jharkhand – 825103. … … Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004. 2. Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, 2nd Floor, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834004. 3. Director General of Police, Government Of Jharkhand, Jharkhand Police Headquarters, P.O and P.S. Hatia, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834003. 4. Superintendent of Police, Chatra Jharkhand Police, P.O. and P.S. Chatra, Dist. Chatra, Jharkhand –
825401. 5. Inspector General of Police, Palamu Zone, Jharkhand Police, P.O. and P.S. Palamu, Dist. Palamu, Jharkhand-822101. 6. Superintendent of Police, Medininagar, Palamu, Jharkhand Police, Kutchery road, P.O. and P.S. Palamu, Dist. Palamu, Jharkhand – 822101. 7. Superintendent of Police, Latehar, Jharkhand Police, P.O. and P.S. Latehar, Dist. Latehar, Jharkhand –
829206. 8. Station House Officer, Chatra Sadar Thana, P.O. and P.S. Chatra Sadar, Dist. Chatra, Jharkhand – 825401. 9. Station House Officer, Kunda Thana, P.O. and P.S. Kunda, Dist. Chatra, Jharkhand – 825404. 10. Station House Officer, Lawalong Thana, P.O. and P.S. Lawalong, Dist. Chatra, Jharkhand-825103. 11. Station House Officer, Tandwa Thana, P.O. and P.S. Tandwa, Dist. Chatra, Jharkhand – 825321. 12. Station House Officer, Simaria Thana, P.O. and P.S. Simaria, Dist. Chatra, Jharkhand-825103. 13. Station House Officer, Gidhaur Thana, P.O. and P.S. Gidhaur, Dist. Chatra, Jharkhand – 825408. 14. Station House Officer, Hunterganj Thana, P.O. and P.S. Hunterganj, Dist. Chatra, Jharkhand – 825403. 15. Station House Officer, Itkhori Thana, P.O. and P.S. Itkhori, Dist. Chatra, Jharkhand – 825408. 16. Station House Officer, Pathalgadda Thana, P.O. and P.S. Pathalgadda, Dist. Chatra, Jharkhand – 825408. 2
17. Station House Officer, Piparwar Thana, P.O. and P.S. Piparwar, Dist. Chatra, Jharkhand – 825321. 18. Station House Officer, Rajpur Thana, P.O. and P.S. Rajpur, Dist. Chatra, Jharkhand – 825401. 19. Station House Officer, Manatu Thana, P.O. and P.S. Manatu, Dist. Palamu, Jharkhand – 822113. 20. Aakraman Ganjhu @ Ravindra Ganjhu @ Ramvinay Singh Bhokta, age about 42years, S/o Yugeshar Ganjhu, R/o Village Kalyanpur, Herum, Lawalong, P.O. and P.S. Lawalong, Dist. Chatra, Jharkhand-825103. 21.
Nilam Devi, age about 37years, W/o Aakraman Ganjhu @ Ravindra Ganjhu @ Ramvinay Singh Bhokta, R/o Village-Kalyanpur, Herum, Lawalong, P.O. and P.S. Lawalong, Dist. Chatra, Jharkhand-825103. 22. Amrit Ganjhu, aged about 30years, S/o Pushan Ganju, R/o Village Lukuiya, Panchayat- SIKIDAG, P.O. and P.S. Kunda, Dist. Chatra, Jharkhand-825404. 23. Sachin Kumar Ganjhu, aged about 30years, S/o Chaman Ganjhu, R/o Village-Chainpur, P.O. Chainpur, P.S. Mandu, Dist. Hazaribagh, Jharkhand-829134. … … Respondents -------
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajveer Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III
: Mr. Deepankar, AC to GA-III ------
Order No. 03/Dated 11th March, 2025
1. Mr. Rajveer Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued out the case at length in furtherance to his argument which was advanced as has been taken note in the order dated 4th March, 2025 to establish the maintainability of the present writ petition.
2. He has also placed bunch of judgments in support of his argument.
3. He has tried to impress upon the Court that even after the order of remand, the Writ of Habeas Corpus will be
3
maintainable on consideration of the applicability of the fundamental right as conferred to the citizen of the country under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
4. A serious objection has been made by learned State counsel by citing one judgment rendered by three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & Others v. Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee reported in (2018) 9 SCC 745 wherein the issue was that if a person is in custody by virtue of order of remand having been passed by a court, then the Writ of Habeas Corpus will be maintainable or not?
5. Learned State counsel has referred paragraph 10 of the said judgment wherein the order of remand has been questioned by filing Writ of Habeas Corpus even at the stage when the said Rizwan Alam Siddiquee has been taken into custody by virtue of the order of remand passed by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court, by taking note of the
judgment rendered in the case of Saurabh Kumar v. Jailor, Koneila Jail reported in (2014) 13 SCC 436 and Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in (2013) 1 SCC 314, has reiterated the law in this regard that the case cannot be said to be of continued illegal detention but the incumbent was in judicial custody by virtue of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, which
4
was in force, granting police remand during investigation of a criminal case, hence, no Writ of Habeas Corpus could be issued.
7.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, upon this, has submitted that leave may be granted to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum for ventilating his grievance by questioning the order of remand which is being said by him that the said order of remand is mechanical in nature.
8. There is no opposition to that submission by the learned State counsel.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty is reserved upon the petitioner to assail the order of remand before the appropriate forum.
10. If the order of remand will be challenged, the dismissal of this writ petition will not prejudice the case of the writ petitioner.
11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands
disposed of.
12. Pending interlocutory applications also stand
disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Birendra/