( 2026:JHHC:11162 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1011 of 2026 ------ 1. Ashok Prasad, aged about 37 years, son of late Nandan Saw @ Nandan Prasad, resident of Village –Nawatand, P.O. & P.S. –Nawadiha Bazar, District –Palamau, Jharkhand. 2. Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar Gupta, aged about 38 years, son of late Nandan Saw @ Nandan Prasad, resident of Village –Nawatand, P.O. & P.S. –Nawadiha Bazar, District – Palamau, Jharkhand. 3. Vinod Sao, aged about 52 years, son of late Pratap Sahu @ Shiv Prasad Sahu, resident of Village –Kanda, P.O. & P.S. – Bishrampur (Nawa Bazar), District –Palamau, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ram Pravesh Prasad @ Ram Prawesh Prasad, aged about 33 years, S/o –Bhola Saw, R/o Village –Eghara, Tola –Sobran Tand, P.O. & P.S. –Pratapur, District –Chatra, Jharkhand. .... .... .... Opp. Parties ------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner s : Mr. Ritesh Kr. Pathak, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate ------ Order No.02 Dated- 17.04.2026 Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioners for restoration of Cr.M.P. No. 3402 of 2025 to its original file. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Cr.M.P. No. 3402 of 2025 was dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order of this Court dated 22.12.2025 to deposit Rs.1,000/- with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA). It is next submitted that due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances, the petitioners could not comply the aforesaid order within the stipulated time resulting in dismissal of the said Cr.M.P. No. 3402 of 2025. It is further submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in this Cr.M.P. No. 3402 of 2025 and unless Cr.M.P. No. 3402 of 2025 is restored to its original file, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the Cr.M.P. No. 3402 of 2025 be restored to its original file. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the petitioners are 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 petitioners, Cr.M.P. No. 3402 of 2025 is restored to its original file to the stage at which, it was before its dismissal subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- by the petitioners 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 petitioners file the proof of payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- by the petitioners to the opposite party no.2 through the learned counsel appearing in the record within two weeks, list Cr.M.P. No. 3402 of 2025 under the appropriate heading after a week before the appropriate Bench. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 17.04.2026 Sonu-