[2026:JHHC:11150] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.958 of 2026 ------ 1. Shiv Lakhan Yadav, age 55 years old son of Balram Yadav 2. Sunil Yadav @ Firoj Yadav, age 40 years old son of Pashupati Yadav 3. Dahu Yadav @ Rajesh Yadav, age 42 years old son of Pashupati Yadav 4. Munim Yadav @ Anil Yadav, age 41 years old son of Pashupati Yadav 5. Shubhash Yadav age 40 years old son of Kishun Yadav 6. Bambam Yadav @ Baban Yadav age 45 years old son of Vikram Yadav 7. Bedo Mandal @ Suresh Yadav age 45 years old son of Ghanshyam Yadav All are resident of Subhanpur Bhatta, P.O. Sahibganj, P.S. Sahibganj Muffassil, District Sahibganj … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Director General of Police Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 2. Shivji Yadav son of Late Rambalak Yadav, resident of Village Mahadevganj, P.O. & P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj. … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl.P.P. For the OP No.2 : Mr. Akash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No:-02 Dated:-17-04-2026 Heard the parties. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer for restoration of Cr.M.P. No. 3292 of 2025, which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 17.12.2025, to its original file. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Cr.M.P. No. 3292 of 2025 was dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 17.12.2025. It is next submitted that time was allowed to the petitioners of Cr.M.P. No. 3292 of 2025 subject to deposit of Rs.1,000/- by the petitioners of that Criminal Miscellaneous Petition with Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) and to file the proof of the same within four weeks from the date of that order but inadvertently, the Advocate’s Clerk could not make the said deposit with JHALSA within the stipulated time; which resulted in dismissal of the said Cr.M.P. No. 3292 of 2025 for non-compliance of the order peremptory order dated 17.12.2025. Now the petitioners are ready and willing to make the said deposit. It is further submitted that non- compliance of the peremptory order dated 17.12.2025 was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said Cr.M.P. No. 3292 of 2025 and unless the same is restored to its original file, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the Cr.M.P. No. 3292 of 2025 be restored to its original file. Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 have not raised any serious objection to the prayer of the petitioners. Considering the facts of the case and the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Cr.M.P. No. 3292 of 2025 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 Cr.M.P. No. 3292 of 2025 before the appropriate Bench after a week. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 17.04.2026 Saroj/