Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4943 (JHR)

ARVIND KUMAR MURMU ALIAS ARVIND MANJHI v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./1199/2026 · 2026-04-02

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:9467 --1-- A.B.A. No. 1199 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1199 of 2026 ---- Arvind Kumar Murmu @ Arvind Manjhi, aged about 38 years, son of Sarodhar Manjhi, resident of village – Putkadih, PO – Ulgadda, PS – Peterwar, District – Bokaro, Jharkhand .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate :- Ms. Trishna Sagar, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Ruby Pandey, Advocate ---- 02/02.04.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Peterwar (Tenughat O.P.) P.S. Case No.41 of 2025 for the alleged offences registered under Sections 303(2) and 317(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and under Rule 13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rule, 2017, pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner has been inserted in the FIR only on suspicion. She further submits that the allegations are made that 2026:JHHC:9467 --2-- A.B.A. No. 1199 of 2026 115 metric tons of illegal coal has been accumulated at three different places at village Putkadih. She then submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the said coal and even the name of that person, who has taken the name of the petitioner, is not disclosed in the FIR. She next submits that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as disclosed in paragraph No.13 of the petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the name of the petitioner has come on suspicion. 5. Considering that the name of the petitioner has come on suspicion and the coal of the petitioner has been denied in the course of argument and the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as disclosed in paragraph No.13 of the petition and in that view of the matter the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Court within two weeks and the learned Court shall release the petitioner on such terms and conditions or the sureties as the learned Court may deem fit and proper. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 02.04.2026 Sangam/