Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5795 (JHR)

RAVINDRA KUMAR TEKRIWAL ALIAS RAVINDRA AGRAWAL v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./1157/2026 · 2026-04-08

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:10101 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- A.B.A. No. 1157 of 2026 ---- Ravindra Kumar Tekriwal @ Ravindra Agrawal, aged about 47 years, son of Gouri Shankar Agrawal, resident of Village Pathargama, PO Pathargama, PS Kadma, District Godda, Jharkhand .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Pawan Kumar, aged about not known, son of Ramji Gupta, resident of Lohandiya Bazar, PO Lalmatia, PS Lalmatia, District Godda, Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Advocate ---- 2/08.04.2026 Heard learned counsels for petitioner and for State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with P.C.R. Case No.896 of 2018 (T.R.No.369 of 2025), for offence registered under section 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Godda. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the complaint case the only allegation against the petitioner has been made that the petitioner has taken the Hywa vehicle from the informant and has earned money and has taken the fare amount in his account. He next submits that, however, in the complaint, it has been stated that the EMI amount was being paid by the petitioner. He next submits that the complaint case was converted into the FIR 2026:JHHC:10101 2 and the police has submitted the final form by which the petitioner has not been sent up for trial and he further submits that thereafter the second complaint has been filed by the complainant in which the cognizance has been taken against him and the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as disclosed in paragraph no.22 of the petition. 4. Learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that on the basis of the complaint case, the learned court has taken cognizance. 5. Considering that in the earlier complaint case, which was converted into the FIR, the final form has been submitted against the petitioner, however, on the second complaint case, for the same allegation, the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance, and in that view of the matter, the petitioner, above named, is, hereby, directed to surrender before learned court within two weeks from today, and learned court shall release the petitioner, above named, on such terms and conditions as well as sureties as the learned court may deem fit and proper. 6. A.B.A. No.1157 of 2026 is disposed of. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 08.04.2026 SI/