JITESH KUMAR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND
W.P.(Cr.)/281/2026 · 2026-06-16
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 16743 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 16743 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:17390 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 281 of 2026 Md. Sagir
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand Police Headquarters, Dhurwa, Ranchi
3. The Inspector General of Police, Ranchi, Jharkhand Police Headquarters, Dhurwa, Ranchi
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi
5. The Officer-In-Charge, Sadar Police Station, Ranchi
… Respondents
---
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the State
: Mrs. Sunita Kumari, AC to Sr.S.C.-II
---
Order No. 02
Dated 16th June, 2026
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective sides.
In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent No. 2 to show cause as to why despite a complaint made by the petitioner before the respondent No. 2 regarding his false implication in Sadar (Mesra) P.S. Case No. 320 of 2024, the same has not been considered as yet.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an Engineer from BIT, Mesra and was preparing for the JPSC examinations, when some police officials had come and taken away the petitioner on account of the fact that he has been made an accused in connection with Sadar (Mesra) P.S. Case No. 320 of 2024. Learned counsel submits that the conduct of the police has been captured in the CCTV footage and in support of which some photographs have been brought on record. It has been submitted that the representation regarding his false implication and the conduct of the police has been brought to the notice of the respondent No. 2 by the petitioner, but the same has not yet been considered and disposed of.
In view of the fact that the prayer made in this writ application can be considered at the first instance by the respondent No. 4, this writ application stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent No. 4 within two weeks from today detailing his grievance and
if such representation is preferred within the period as aforesaid, the respondent No. 4 shall endeavour to dispose of the representation expeditiously and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation along with a copy of this order.
This writ application stands disposed of.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J.) 16.06.2026 MK
Page-2