Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27205 (JHR)

SUMIT DAGAL SAND @ SUMIT D SAND v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cr.M.P./2997/2026 · 2026-09-25

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:JHHC:28956] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2997 of 2026 ------ Sumit Dagal Sand @ Sumit D Sand aged about 20 years, Son of Namjan Lohra, Resident at village Munda Chalagi, P.O. & P.S. Khunti, District Khunti, (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No:-02 Dated:-25-09-2026 Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer for restoration of B.A. No.13526 of 2026 (Filing No.) to its original file which stood dismissed for non- compliance of the peremptory order dated 17.08.2026 passed by this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that B.A. No.13526 of 2026 (Filing No.) stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 17.08.2026 passed by this Court to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter. It is next submitted that the counsel for the petitioner had removed some defects but as some surviving defects could not be removed within the stipulated time, hence, the same resulted in dismissal of the said B.A. No.13526 of 2026 (Filing No.) for non-compliance of the said peremptory order dated 17.08.2026 passed by this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner had already filed I.A. No.12524 of 2026 on 02.09.2026 to remove the said defects. It is next submitted that non- compliance of the said peremptory order dated 17.08.2026 was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said B.A. No.13526 of 2026 (Filing No.) and unless the same is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the B.A. No.13526 of 2026 (Filing No.) be restored to its original file. Learned counsel appearing for the State has not raised any serious objection. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, B.A. No.13526 of 2026 (Filing No.) is directed to be restored to its original file at the same stage at which it was before its dismissal. Registry is directed to list B.A. No.13526 of 2026 (Filing No.) before the concerned Bench after a week. This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated-25.09.2026-Animesh/