Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 13127 (JHR)

SOMAR SINGH v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cr.Rev./422/2020 · 2026-05-08

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:13869 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 422 of 2020 1. Somar Singh, aged about 60 years, son of Kali Singh, resident of Village – Belma, P.O. – Poraiya, P.S. – Nimyaghat, Dist. – Giridih. 2. Tek Lal Mahto, aged about 64 years, son of Inderdew Mahto, resident of Village – 38, Belma, Poraria, P.O. – Isri Bazar, P.S.-Isri Bazar, District – Giridih. 3. Degnarayan Mahto, aged about 44 years, son of Bhaikhlal Mahto, resident of village – Belma, Poraiya, P.O. – Isri Bazar, P.S. – Isri Bazar, District – Giridih. 4. Md. Yusuf Alam, aged about 31 years, son of Md. Kamruddin Ansari, resident of village – Birpok, Chgro, P.O. – Jamtar, P.S.- Dumri, District – Giridih. 5. Manoj Kumar Mahto, aged about 42 years, son of Nirmal Mahto, resident of 22A, Poraiya, P.O.- Poraria, P.S. – Isri Bazar, District – Giridih. 6. Rajendra Kumar Mahto @ Raj Kumar, aged about 26 years, son of Bodhram Mahto, resident of village – Paharpur, P.O. Poraria, P.S. – Isri Bazar, District – Giridih. 7. Bhola Singh, aged about 45 years, son of Tulsi Singh, resident of 71 Belma, P.O. - Poraria, P.S. – Isri Bazar, District – Giridih. 8. Lalita Devi, aged about 32 years, W/o Basudeo Ram, resident of 22, Manjhliadih, P.O. – Poraria, P.S.-Isri Bazar, District – Giridih. ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Girdhari Mahto, son of Late Dharam Mahto, resident of Village – Belma, P.O. – Belma, P.S.- Nimiaghat, District – Giridih. ….. Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Shwetang Kumar Tiwari, Advocate. For the State : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, A.P.P. --------- Order No. 08/Dated: 8th May, 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial of S.T. No. 94 of 2017 has been concluded and the petitioners have been convicted therein, therefore, this revision has become infructuous and accordingly appropriate order may be passed. 2026:JHHC:13869 2 2. Considering such submission, this criminal revision is dismissed as infructuous. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) May 8, 2026 Sunil/ Uploaded On 12/05/2026