( 2026:JHHC:19553 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1101 of 2025 ------ Dr. Vikash Kumar Singh Deo @ Vikash Kumar Singh Deo, aged about 46 Years, son of Sri Jagannath Singh Deo, Present Resident of Duplex No. -304, Phase -5, Vijaya Garden, Baridih, Post Baridih, Police Station Birsanagar, Town Jamshedpur, District –East Singhbhum. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Home, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Post Dhurwa, Police Station Dhurwa, District –Ranchi.’ 2. Secretary, Department of Home, Project Bhawan, Post Dhurwa, Police Station Dhurwa, District –Ranchi. 3. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Police Headquarter, Post Dhurwa, Police Station Dhurwa, District – Ranchi. 4. The Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, Post Sakchi, Police Station Sakchi, District –East Singhbhum. 5. Officer-in-Charge, Birsanagar Police Station, Post Birsanagar, Police Station Birsanagar, Town Jamshedpur, District –East Singhbhum. 6. Sadrul Haque, Son of unknown to the petitioner, the then Police Sub-Inspector, Birsanagar Police Station, Post Birsanagar, Police Station Birsanagar, Town Jamshedpur, District –East Singhbhum. 7. Dhananjay Baitha, Son of unknown to the petitioner, the then Investigating Officer, Birsanagar Police Station, Post Birsanagar, Police Station Birsanagar, Town Jamshedpur, District –East Singhbhum. .... .... .... Opp. Parties ------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Achyut Keshav, Sr. AAG For the O.P. No.2 : Ms. Komal S. Narayan, Advocate ------ Order No.05 Dated- 03.07.2026 Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioner for restoration of W.P. (Cr.) No. 229 of 2021 to its original file. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that W.P. (Cr.) No. 229 of 2021 was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is next submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner was to appear in-person but due to inadvertence, he could not mark the case in the cause list dated 29.01.2025 and as such he could not appear before the court on the said date; which resulted in dismissal of the said W.P. (Cr.) No. 229 of 2021. It is next submitted that non-appearance of the petitioner in the said W.P. (Cr.) No. 229 of 2021 was neither deliberate nor intention. It is further submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said W.P. (Cr.) No. 229 of 2021 and unless W.P. (Cr.) No. 229 of 2021 is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the W.P. (Cr.) No. 229 of 2021 be restored to its original file. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the petitioner is deliberately delaying the matter and harassing the opposite party no.2 by lingering the same. Hence, the opposite party no.2 be adequately compensated with costs. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, W.P. (Cr.) No. 229 of 2021 is restored to its original file to the stage at which, it was before its dismissal subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- by the petitioner to the opposite party no.2 through the learned counsel appearing in the record within two weeks, failing which, this conditional order shall not be given effect to and this criminal miscellaneous petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench. In case, the petitioner files the proof of payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- by the petitioner to the opposite party no.2 through the learned counsel appearing in the record within two weeks, list W.P. (Cr.) No. 229 of 2021 under the appropriate heading after a week before the appropriate Bench. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 03.07.2026 Sonu-