Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 18190 (JHR)

NUR MOHAMAD ANSARI @ NUR MOHAMAD ANSARI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND

Cr.M.P./1368/2026 · 2026-06-29

Arun Kumar Rai, Sujit Narayan Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:18927-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1368 of 2026 Nur Mohammad Ansari @ Nur Mohamad Ansari, aged about 64 years, S/O Sahabuddin Ansari, R/O Muslim Tola, P.O- Arita, P.S- Chandankiyari, Arita, Bokaro, Jharkhand, 828134. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having its Office at Nepal House, P.O & PS- Doranda, Dist.: Ranchi, Jharkhand, 834002 2. Director General of Police, Jharkhand, having its office at Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi. 3. Superintendent of Police, Bokaro, having its office at S.P office, Camp II, Bokaro, P.O and P.S-Bokaro, Dist- Jharkhand 4. Officer-in-charge, Chass Police Station, P.O and P.S - Chass, Dist-Bokaro (Jharkhand) 5. Heena Bibi @ Heena Parweene W/o- Khalik Ansari D/O- Habib Ansari present address- Bhara Basti, Chass Bokaro, P.O and P.S- Chass, Dist-Bokaro (Jharkhand) Permanent Address- Adhta P.O- Adhta, P.S- Chandankiyari, District-Bokaro (Jharkhand) 6. Habib Ansari Father of Heena Bibi @ Heena Parween S/O Unknown, R/O Adhta P.O- Adhta, P.S- Chandankiyari, District- Bokaro (Jharkhand) … Opposite Parties ---------- Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayush Raj, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, Advocate ----- 2026:JHHC:18927-DB 2 Order No.02/Dated: 29.06.2026 1. The present petition has been filed for restoration of W.P.(Cr.) Filing No. 25553 of 2025 which was dismissed for default on 03.02.2026 for non- compliance of the peremptory order dated 20.01.2026. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that due to the mistake of the office clerk the defect could not have been removed within time. It has further been submitted that if the present petition will not be allowed then the writ petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury. 3. While on the other hand, Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for restoration. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The writ petition being, W.P.(Cr.) Filing No. 25553 of 2025 is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus. The same has been dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 20.01.2026. 6. This Court has gone through the order dated 20th January, 2026 by which the following order was passed: 1. None is present to represent the petitioner. 2. Two weeks time is allowed to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, failing which, this matter shall be dismissed without further reference to the Bench. 7. Considering the submission made on behalf of the writ petitioner that if the present petition will not be allowed, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury, we both are of the view that the present petition be allowed and accordingly, it is allowed. 2026:JHHC:18927-DB 3 8. The writ petition being, W.P.(Cr.) Filing No. 25553 of 2025 is restored to its original file, subject to removal of defects within two weeks. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 29th June, 2026 R.K/Rajnish