2026:JHHC:8118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 517 of 2024 ------ Tulsi Saw, son of Somar Saw, resident of Village Bero, P.O. & P.S. Barkattha, District Hazaribag .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Hazaribag 2. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Hazaribag 3. Superintendent of Police, Hazaribag, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Hazaribag 4. Sub Divisional Officer, Hazaribag, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Hazaribag 5. Radheshyam Kumar, son of Tulsi Saw, resident of Village Bero, P.O. & P.S. Barkattha, District Hazaribag .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioner : Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Deepankar, A.C. to G.A. III For the Res. No.5 : Mr. Anuj Kumar Trivedi, Advocate ------ Order No.06 / Dated : 23.03.2026 Heard Mr. Avilash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Deepankar, learned A.C. to G.A. III and Mr. Anuj Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5. 2. In this writ application, a direction has been sought for upon the respondent nos.1 – 4 to protect the life, liberty and property of the petitioner which is at stake at the hands of respondent no.5. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent no.5 is the elder son of the petitioner and in fact, the respondent no.5 is trying to oust the petitioner from his own house. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has also instituted a case against the respondent no.5 and the respondent no.5 has also instituted a case against the petitioner, therefore, in view of the volatile relationship existing between the petitioner and respondent no.5, it is necessary that the petitioner be protected. 4. Mr. Anuj Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.5. has submitted that only on account of the fact that the respondent no.5 had solemnized marriage elsewhere other than the choice of the petitioner, he has been debarred from the property rights and he has also been ousted from his house by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the respondent no.5 has also instituted a criminal case against the petitioner. 5. It seems that the petitioner and respondent no.5 being father and son, share bad blood on account of some dispute in the property as the respondent no.5 seems to claim share in the property, but it appears that he has been debarred by the petitioner from any share in the property. In fact, a case has been instituted by the petitioner being Barkattha P.S. Case No.40 of 2023 against the respondent no.5 2026:JHHC:8118 and the respondent no.5 has also instituted a case being Barkattha P.S. Case No.136 of 2024. 6. In view of the volatile relationship existing between the petitioner and the respondent no.5 which has resulted in the institution of case and counter case and the primary dispute seems to be with respect to the share in the property, I am not inclined to accede to the prayer made by the writ petitioner in this writ application. Consequently, this writ application stands dismissed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Anit Uploaded 25.03.2026