Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9066 (JHR)

TAUFIQUE @ PAPPU @TAUFIQUE RAZA QURAISHI ALLIAS TAUFIQUE QURAISHI v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./6938/2025 · 2026-02-06

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:3220 --1-- A.B.A. No. 6937 of 2025 with A.B.A. No. 6938 of 2025 with A.B.A. No. 457 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 6937 of 2025 ---- Shadab Quraishi @ Khalid Raza, age 40 years, S/o Late Sarful Haque, R/o Gudri, Quraishi Mohalla, PO – GPO, PS – Lower Bazar, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 6938 of 2025 ---- Taufique @ Pappu @ Taufique Raza Quraishi @ Taufique Quraishi, age 45 years, S/o Late Sarful Haque, R/o Gudri, Quraishi Mohalla, PO – GPO, PS – Lower Bazar, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 457 of 2026 ---- Mohammad Mister Ansari, age 26 years, S/o Jilani Ansari, R/o village – Nawadih, PO – Dantar, PS – Huntergank, District – Chatra, Jharkhand .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- A.B.A. No. 6937 of 2025 For the Petitioner :- Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate :- Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Advocate A.B.A. No. 6938 of 2025 & A.B.A. No. 457 of 2026 For the Petitioner :- Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Advocate ---- 04/06.02.2026 All the ABAs are arising out of same FIR and same impugned order. 2026:JHHC:3220 --2-- A.B.A. No. 6937 of 2025 with A.B.A. No. 6938 of 2025 with A.B.A. No. 457 of 2026 2. The matter relates to Lower Bazar P.S. Case No.255 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned JMFC at Ranchi. 2. After some argument, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in respective ABAs seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to move before the learned Court by way of filing regular bail application. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State in respective cases have got no objection. 4. Permission is accorded. 5. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. 6. It is made clear that if the petitioners move before the learned Court by way of filing regular bail application, the learned Court will decide the same in accordance with law without prejudice to this order. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 06.02.2026 Sangam/