[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Rekha Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 16 April, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (Cr.) (D.B.) (HB) No.165 of 2026
-----
Rekha Devi ....... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vincent Rohit Marki, Advocate
Ms. Ritul Nanda, Advocate
Mr. Shantanu Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Yashdeep Kanhai, Advocate
For the Resp-State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, GA-V
For the Resp-UOI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI
For the Resp-RIMS : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
------
Order No.11/Dated: 16th April, 2026
1. Reference may be made to the order dated 15.04.2026, in
pursuance thereto the police officer concerned, i.e., Director General of
Police, Jharkhand; I.G, Bokaro, D.IG., Bokaro; S.P, Bokaro; team
members of the second SIT constituted in connection with Pindrajora
P.S Case No.147 of 2025 and the Director FSL Ranchi are present in
the Court.
2. The learned Advocate General is also present. He has narrated
the things of the present case.
3. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate General that prima
facie view of the SIT is that the skeleton which has been recovered is
of the corpus. It has been submitted that reason for such prima facie
view is that the clothes which was worn by the corpus has been found
at the place where the skeleton was found. It has also been submitted
that the skeleton was recovered on the basis of the confession of one
Dinesh Mahto to whom, as has been alleged, the corpus was having love
affairs.
4. It has further been submitted that the sample of the skeleton has
been taken and kept in 29 packets having been collected from the said
place.
5. It has further been submitted that the skeleton has now been sent
to RIMS, Ranchi for postmortem which perhaps will take some time for
conducting the postmortem. It has also been submitted that the required
samples from the parents, i.e., father and mother of the corpus have been
collected so as to send it to the FSL, Ranchi for DNA profile.
6. At this stage, the Court has found that prior to passing of order,
i.e., 15.04.2026 by this Court, no effort was made for DNA Profile by
the S.I.T. and the District police of Bokaro which is under the direct
supervision of the I.G, Bokaro and D.I.G, Bokaro including the S.P,
Bokaro. However, after passing of the order dated 15.04.2026 DNA
Profile was being sent, i.e., yesterday evening and the blood samples of
the mother and father of the corpus have been collected to send it to the
FSL, Ranchi for DNA Profile to match with the skeleton recovered
which is said to be the corpus.
7. It has been stated by the learned Advocate General that for
collecting the samples, permission has already been obtained from the
trial Court concerned.
8. This Court in order to have the conclusive finding regarding the
identity of the skeleton recovered said to be of the corpus is of the view
that the proper test/examination is required.
9. It is pertinent to mention herein that the S.P, Bokaro has appeared
on 20.03.2026 through virtual mode although the Court had not passed
direction upon him to appear physically or virtual mode before this
Court but even, he has not sufficiently explained as to what was the
reason for delay in instituting the FIR. Therefore, this Court has passed
the order on 20.03.2026 which is being referred hereinbelow for ready
reference:
"1. At the very outset, it has been pointed out that in the order dated
19.03.2026 passed in the present proceeding at paragraph nos.6 and 8 of
the said order, the date of institution of FIR has wrongly been typed as
04.08.2026 in place of 04.08.2025.
2. Considering the aforesaid typographical error, the order dated
19.03.2026 is modified to the extent that in paragraph nos.6 and 8 of the
order the date of institution of FIR be replaced as 04.08.2025 in place of
04.08.2026. The other part of the order shall remain intact.
3. The above part of the order is modified accordingly.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has already
filed the typed copy of the required documents in the Registry.
5. Office to verify and proceed accordingly.
6. Reference may be made to the order dated 19.03.2026, by which this
Court has passed the following order:
"1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that
defects were to be removed but as per the office note dated 28th February,
2026 the same could not be removed.
2. The learned counsel has further submitted that typed copy shall be filed
in course of the day.
3. The matter was heard on 27.2.2026 and following order was passed:
"02/Dated: 27th February, 2026
1. The instant writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India seeking direction upon the respondent to trace, recover and
produce the 2 detenu/missing Pushpa Kumari, the daughter of the writ
petitioner.
2. This Court, considering the submissions made by the petitioner,
thought it proper to get interaction with the Superintendent of Police of
the concerned district, i.e., of Bokaro.
3. Therefore, Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, learned counsel appearing
for the State, is directed to ask the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro to
join the Court proceedings through virtual mode, for which, the link has
been provided by the Court Master.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Bokaro has appeared through virtual
mode and has stated that all the sincere endeavours are being taken
and in order to have the authentic clue, the decision has been taken to
have the narco test on one suspect.
5. Further, he has assured this Court that he will take all sincere
endeavours to trace out the girl and whatever he has stated today
regarding the progress in the investigation, will be brought on record
by way of an affidavit.
6. List this case on 19th March, 2026 with the update of the tracing out
of the victim.
7. In the meantime, let the defect(s) be removed."
4. The counter-affidavit has been filed which is drafted on the basis of the
investigation said to be carried out and the statement made therein is
based upon the recording of the statement as referred in the case diary.
5. At paragraph no.12 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that Sanha in this
matter was registered on 24.7.2025 on the request of the petitioner as she
was not willing to make public the news of her missing daughter.
6. The present writ petition has been filed on 16.2.2026 but there is no
progress in the investigation in view of the FIR which was lodged on
04.08.2026.
7. This Court is very much astonished that when the Sanha was accepted
on 24.7.2025 was it available for the police not to register an FIR on the
basis of the request made by the informant.
8. The Superintendent of Police, Bokaro is to explain as to why the Sanha
which was instituted on 24.7.2025 then why the FIR was lodged after delay
of ten days, i.e., on 4.8.2026.
9. In various paragraphs of the counter-affidavit reference has been made
regarding the investigation being carried out.
10.In paragraph no.21 while making reference of the statement recorded
in paragraph Nos. 140 and 141 of the case diary, one Dinesh Mahto has
been referred as an accused who was brought to the police station and his
statement was recorded and also his mobile number was seized and sent
for determining CDR and tower location on the date of the commission of
crime. The missing poster has also been displayed in the public places.
11.It has also been stated that the report has also been sent regarding
missing of the daughter of the petitioner to the State Crime Records Bureau
and NCRB, ZIPNET even to the CBI for finding any clue of the missing
girl.
12.The statement recorded at paragraph no. 23 of the counteraffidavit
shows that the district police at Bokaro is helpless and that is the reason
communication has been made to the CBI for finding any clue regarding
the missing girl. Further it appears from paragraph no. 25 that one person,
namely, Loknath Mahto has made a forged call to the mother of the missing
girl regarding her presence in Pune. Thereafter the police has inquired
from him and has found that he was a drunken person who has made false
call to the writ petitioner. The reference of issuance of hue and cry notice
has also been made by the Pune Police as referred in paragraph no.27.
13.This Court is of the view that in the entirety of the statements inter alia
made in the counter-affidavit, particularly, the fact about reporting to the
CBI for finding any clue and issuance of hue and cry notice by Pune Police
which is suggestive of the fact that the Bokaro Police has also come to the
view that the case requires inter-state investigation.
14.Since it is a case of missing of a girl and even after lapse of substantial
period no clue has been found by the Bokaro Police, this Court thinks why
the matter be not handed over to the CBI.
15.This matter is adjourned to be listed tomorrow, i.e., 20.3.2026
purposely because granting more time will jeopardize the life of the corpus
of the writ petitioner, since inaction may cause danger to the life of the
corpus."
7. Although, we have not passed the order of physical appearance of the
S.P, Bokaro either physical or through virtual mode, but Mr. Jayant
Franklin Toppo, the learned GA-V appearing for the State has submitted
that the S.P, Bokaro is intending to join the Court proceeding. Thereafter,
the Court has asked the Court Master to provide the link and, accordingly,
link has been provided and the S.P, Bokaro has joined the Court
proceeding through virtual mode.
8. This Court has posed a specific question as was referred by this Court
in the order dated 19.03.2026 that when the Sanha was accepted on
24.07.2025, then why the FIR was not instituted immediately on the same
date and why it was instituted after delay of 10 days, i.e., on 04.08.2025,
that too, in a situation where the question of missing of lady (Corpus) is
concerned.
9. The S.P, Bokaro has stated that it is not correct fact that the
investigation has been carried out after institution of FIR which was
instituted on 04.08.2025, rather after entering the Sanha, i.e., 4 on
24.07.2025 the investigation has been carried out immediately thereafter
by calling upon the C.D.R. etc.
10.This Court has posed a question to the S.P, Bokaro that whether this
fact has been stated in the counter affidavit dated 16.03.2026 which has
been filed after making a reference of various paragraphs of the case
diary. He has stated that such thing has not been stated.
11.This Court has again gone through the counter affidavit dated
16.03.2026 wherein the statement has been made at paragraph-12 that the
police has registered Sanha in this matter on 24.07.2025 and on the
request of the petitioner as she was not willing to make public the news of
her missing daughter report but further looking into the gravity of the case
police has lodged FIR in this case on 04.08.2025 and started investigation
in this matter.
12. What has been stated by the S.P, Bokaro is contrary to the statement
made in paragraph-12 of the said counter affidavit, for ready reference the
statement made in paragraph-12 of the said counter affidavit is being
quoted hereunder as: "12. That, Police has registered Sanha in this matter
on 24.07.2025 and on the request of the Petitioner as she was not willing
to make public the news of her missing daughter report but further looking
into the gravity of the Case Police has lodged F.I.R in this case on
04.08.2025 and started investigation in this matter."
13. This Court has found what has orally been stated by the S.P, Bokaro is
contrary to the statement made in paragraph-12 of the said counter
affidavit, as quoted and referred hereinabove although the said affidavit
has been sworn by the S.P. Bokaro himself.
14. This Court, therefore, has found that there is discrepancy in the
statement made at paragraph-12 of the said counter affidavit and the
statement made by the S.P, Bokaro before this Court in the present Court
proceeding.
15. This Court, however, in order to give a chance to the S.P, Bokaro is
adjourning this matter to be listed on 23.03.2026 with a direction to the
S.P, Bokaro to appear along with the concerned 5 Investigating Officer
before this Court physically with the case diary.
16. Let the entire record pertaining to Pindrajora P.S Case No. 147 of
2025 lying with the jurisdiction of the Magistrate of the concerned district
be also called for.
17.Let this order be communicated to the Principal and District Sessions
Judge, Bokaro forthwith for compliance of the aforesaid order so that the
records must reach on the next date fixed.
18. List this matter on 23.03.2026 at 10:30 AM."
10. Thus, basis of the aforesaid this Court is further of the view that
that conduct of the Bokaro police is not appears to be proper due to the
following reasons:
(i) Although Sanha was registered on 24.07.2025 by the mother
of missing girl (corpus herein) but the FIR was instituted on
04.08.2025. Thus, there is admitted delay of about 10 days in
instituting the FIR, which is in direct violation of the
constitutional mandate and the same is also in utter violation
of the judgment rendered by the constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of
U.P [W.P.(Crl) No; 68/2008] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court
has categorically held that registration of First Information
Report is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure/173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, if the information discloses
commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary
inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
(ii) Further, it is evident from the case diary which has been
submitted before this Court that although the name of the
accused Dinesh Mahto was taken by the writ petitioner in her
re-statement dated 04.08.2025 but even then, the said accused
has been arrested on 11.04.2026 and upon basis of the
confessional statement of the said accused the Skelton said to
be of the corpus has been recovered.
(iii) Further from record it appears that when this Court has passed
an order on 27.02.2026 only thereafter the police has shown
his activeness.
(iv) Further vide order dated 19.03.2026 passed by this Court it
would be evident that this Court has recorded the statement
based upon paragraph no. 23 of the counter-affidavit that the
district police at Bokaro is helpless and that is the reason
communication has been made to the CBI for finding any clue
regarding the missing girl.
(v) Further, it would be evident from order dated 07.04.2026
passed by this Court that the learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that sincere endeavour is not being taken to
produce the corpus, and on the other hand, the family members
of the writ petitioner are being harassed and the uncle of the
petitioner, namely, Samapad Mahato has been subjected to
physical assault and inhuman treatment by the police
authorities and is being forcibly coerced to falsely confess to
an offence which he has not committed. In support thereof the
learned counsel has submitted medical report of Samapad
Mahato.
(vi) This Court has taken serious note of the conduct of the Bokaro
Police and directed monitoring of the matter at the highest
level and only thereafter, on 10.04.2026, the respondent
authorities constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) in
connection with the present case and on 11.04.2026, the
respondent police allegedly recovered skeletal remains
purported to be of the petitioner's daughter (corpus herein).
(vii) Thus , from the aforesaid it is evident that the police has taken
step only after intervention of this Court and it amount to the
gross negligence on part of the police particularly taken into
consideration the fact that after registration of FIR on
04.08.2025 police remained sitting idle.
(viii) The police authorities themselves had indicated that a narco-
analysis test of the said suspect will be conducted, however,
from record it appears that till date no such test has been
carried out and the matter has been deliberately delayed.
(ix) Thus, the conduct of the respondent police clearly
demonstrates complete inaction for several months,
Harassment of petitioner's family members, failure to
interrogate the prime suspect; and recovery of the skeleton said
to be of the corpus immediately after intervention of this
Court.
11. It is further evident as has been submitted by the learned
Advocate General that the police officers who have been prima facie
found to be negligent in discharging their official duty, i.e., the
members of the first S.I.T as also the police personnel of the
Pindrajora police station, total 28 in number, have been put under
suspension.
12. This Court is not making any comment upon the domain of the
concerned authority suspending the said police personnel of the
Pindrajora police station, at the moment.
13. This Court, in view of the aforesaid fact, is of the view that before
passing further necessary order it would be just and proper to first
corroborate the identity of the skeleton which has been found to be
recovered said to be on the basis of the confession of Dinesh Mahto,
since, a serious doubt has been created by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner.
14. The samples have already been collected. This Court, therefore,
in order to come to the truth and to evade any type of doubt and
particularly taking into consideration the aforesaid gross negligent
conduct of the police concerned, it is most important accountability of
this Court to come to the truth with respect to the identity of the skeleton
which is being now said to be of the corpus.
15. It requires to refer herein that the court's fundamental duty is to
ascertain the truth to deliver justice, rather than merely acting as an
umpire in a legal battle. As the foundation of justice, the court must
actively search for truth through evidence, ensuring truth alone
triumphs. The entire judicial system has been created only to discern
and find out the real truth. The primary duty of a Court is to make a
single-minded endeavour to unearth the truth hidden beneath the facts.
Thus, the Court is a search engine of truth, with procedural and
substantive laws as its tools, reference in this regard be made to
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Om
Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das Vs. UOI and Anr. 2025 INSC
43.
16. This Court, therefore, is of the view that let the samples of the
mother and father of the corpus be collected for its DNA Profile again
and the skeleton which has been recovered, sample thereof, be sent to
CFSL, Kolkata and report of the same thereof be sent to this Court in
the sealed envelope.
17. The learned Advocate General has submitted that the recovered
skeleton is now being sent for conducting the postmortem to RIMS,
Ranchi.
18. In view thereof, this Court is of the view that let the Director,
RIMS, Ranchi be impleaded as party-respondent in the present
proceeding.
19. Let necessary correction be carried out in the memo of petition
during course of the day.
20. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for RIMS, Ranchi
appears and waives notice on behalf of RIMS, Ranchi.
21. The Director, RIMS, Ranchi is hereby directed to look into the
matter personally and get the postmortem of the skeleton conducted
without any delay at the earliest by giving priority upon this.
22. Since the samples are to be collected, hence, this Court is hereby
directed the GOC of the concerned Cantonment/concerned authority of
Military Hospital, Namkum to collect the samples of the mother and
father of the corpus which shall be collected by him within 48 hours.
23. The head of the second S.I.T will co-ordinate by approaching
the GOC/Head of the Military Hospital, Namkum for collection of the
said samples.
24. The head of the second S.I.T will also collect the consequence
of the postmortem which is to be conducted by the RIMS, Ranchi
directly to be sent to the Military Hospital, Namkum immediately after
its receipt.
25. Since this Court is sending the sample, it will be the
accountability of the GOC/Head of the Military Hospital, Namkum to
send the samples directly to the C.F.S.L, Kolkata.
26. report thereof be sent to this Court in sealed envelope.
27. It has been submitted by Mr. Prashant Pallav, the learned ASGI
that the C.F.S.L, Kolkata is under the control of the Directorate of
Forensic Science Services which is under the direct control of Ministry
of Home Affairs, Government of India.
28. In view thereof, let the Director, C.F.S.L, Kolkata be also
impleaded as party-respondent in the present proceeding.
29. Let necessary addition be carried out in the memo of petition
during course of the day.
30. Since second S.I.T has already been constituted and, as such, this
Court is not passing any order by making remark upon the conduct of
earlier constituted S.I.T for the present, rather we thought it proper to
co-ordinate the things to be coordinated by second S.I.T headed by Mr.
Alok Ranjan, Dy.S.P (City), Bokaro as well as the present Investigating
Officer of Pindrajora P.S Case No.147 of 2025.
31. Since the medical report has already been received which is kept
in the sealed cover.
32. Let the original records of Pindrajora P.S Case No.147 of 2025
be sent back to the Court concerned after keeping a scanned copy/photo
copy on the record.
33. The scanned/photo copy of the case diary of Pindrajora P.S Case
No.147 of 2025 as well as the confessional statement of concerned
person, namely, Dinesh Mahto be kept on record in a sealed cover.
34. The I.G., Bokaro; D.I.G., Bokaro, S.P, Bokaro, Dy. S.P (City),
Bokaro who is the head of the second S.I.T and the present Investigating
Officer of Pindrajora P.S Case No.147 of 2025 shall remain present in
the Court on the next date of hearing.
35. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand will monitor
everything of the present case personally.
36. The learned Advocate General will take care of the entire
exercise and ensure the proper execution of all the directions as
mentioned hereinabove.
37. The personal appearance of the rest of the officers/police
personnel including the Director General of Police, Jharkhand shall be
dispensed with.
38. Let this matter be listed on 07.05.2026.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Dated:16.04.2026
Sudhir
