Ranjeet Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 February, 2026

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                                                           2026:JHHC:3902




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       W. P. (Cr) No. 463 of 2024
                            -----

Ranjeet Kumar, S/o Late Kamal Saw, R/o Village-Rasoia Dhamna, P.O. & P.S.-Barhi, Dist.-Hazaribagh ... .... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand having its Office at Jharkhand Police Headquarter, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi

3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Jharkhand Police Headquarter, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi

4. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hatia, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Jharkhand Police Headquarter, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi

5. Officer-In-Charge, Jagannathpur Police Station, having its office at Sector 2, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagannathpur, Ranchi, Jharkhand

6. Sandip Suman, at present officiating as S.D.P.O., Chatra, Sadar Thana, P.O.-Ansar Nagar, P.S.-Sadar, Dist.-Chatra

7. Nitish Kumar Pandey, at present officiating as Sub Inspector, Rajhmahal Thana, Sahibganj, P.O.-Barharwa, P.S.-Rajmahal, Dist.-Sahibganj.

8. Archana Singh, W/o Satish Kumar, R/o Vikash Nagar, Road No. 2, P.O.- Hesag, P.S.-Hatia, Dist.-Ranchi

9. Satish Kumar, R/o Vikash Nagar, Road No. 2, P.O.-Hesag, P.S.-Hatia, Dist.-Ranchi

10. Fleet Labs Technologies Pvt. Ltd. through its authorized representative Abhishek Kumar Singh, having its registered office at 1st Floor, Ward No.3, Opposite of Satyam Apartment, Dipatoli, Adalhatu Colony, Morabadi, P.O.- Morabadi, P.S.-Bariatu, Dist.-Ranchi ... .... Respondents

-----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajeet Kumar, Sr. Advocate Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Advocate Ms. Tejaswita Safalta, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Deepankar, AC to GA-III For Respondent Nos. 8 & 9: Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, Advocate Mrs. Rabisha Goenka, Advocate

-----

Oral Order 09 / Dated : 12. 02.2026

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction to the police authority impleaded as respondent nos. 6 and 7 to disclose under what authority Grocery Chain 'Apna Mart' of the petitioner, which was running in Uma Shankar Heights, Latma Road, Hatia, has been sealed. A further 2026:JHHC:3902

prayer has been made for direction upon the owner of the premises to hand over the 'Apna Mart' to the petitioner and to restitute the financial loss due to said seal and seizure of the marketing complex.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was owning the aforementioned grocery shop in the premises taken on lease from respondent nos. 8 and 9. During investigation in Jamua P.S. Case No. 256 of 2023 registered under Sections 395 & 412 of IPC, the petitioner and his brother were arrested. After the said arrest, the premises of the marketing complex was sealed and the key was handed over to the owner of the premises.

3. The owner of the premises issued the eviction notice thereafter and respondent nos. 8 and 9 are themselves running Apna Mart by entering into an agreement with Fleet Labs Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent no. 10).

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the police acted de hors the power under the Cr.P.C. to seal the premises which had no connection with the offence alleged against the petitioner. It further committed another illegality by handing over the key of the premises to the original owner who undertook the business of the petitioner by using the grocery items valued approximately to Rs.26 Lakh that were stocked in the shop. After being released on bail, the petitioner has moved this Court for restoring the possession of the said grocery shop along with the loss incurred by the petitioner due to such seizure.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and the specific stand that has been taken is that, the charge-sheet was submitted in Jamua P.S. Case No. 256 of 2023 under Section 395/412 of IPC against the Petitioner. Crime proceed of Rs.1,14,00,000/- was recovered from the old house of the petitioner in that case. It has, however, been denied that the said premises was sealed by the police.

6. The owner of the premises (respondent nos. 8 and 9) had also entered into appearance and filed their separate counter affidavit. Specific stand of the owner of the premises is that the petitioner was having a franchisee agreement with respondent no. 10-Fleet Labs Technologies Pvt. Ltd. for business of trading of wholesale goods and other

2026:JHHC:3902

products and respondent no. 8 let out the premises to the petitioner vide agreement dated 20.05.2023. After arrest of the petitioner and his involvement in the criminal activity, the management of 'Apna Mart' took over the shop and respondent no. 8 is getting rent from respondent no. 10 directly. It is denied that respondent no. 8 is running the business of the said Apna Mart.

7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, the pleading of the Petitioner that 'Apna Mart' was sealed by police in connection with investigation of the case of dacoity, is not substantiated by materials on record. From the counter affidavits filed by the owner of premises as well as that filed on behalf of the police authorities, it appears that after the Petitioner was arrested in connection with dacoity case, notice was served on him by owner (R- 8&9) of the premises terminating the tenancy in terms of clause-15 of the agreement dated 20.05.2023 in view of his involvement in criminal activity. Further, it has also been categorically stated on affidavit, that the said Mart is not being operated by Respondent No.8, rather, the business has been taken over by Fleet Labs Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Company from which the Petitioner had taken franchise. Consequently Respondent No.8 entered into rent agreement with Respondent No.10.

8. On these materials it is apparent that proximate cause for termination of tenancy was involvement of the Petitioner in criminal activity. Whether the premises was in fact sealed or not, is a contested question of fact, which this Court cannot delve into. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by termination of tenancy or franchise, he has alternative remedies. Facts and circumstances of the case are not fit for exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. It has been held in Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corpn. v. Diamond & Gem Development Corpn. Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 470:

22. Hence, discretion must be exercised by the court on grounds of public policy, public interest and public good.

The writ is equitable in nature and thus, its issuance is governed by equitable principles. Refusal of relief must be for reasons which would lead to injustice. The prime

2026:JHHC:3902

consideration for the issuance of the said writ is, whether or not substantial justice will be promoted. Furthermore, while granting such a writ, the court must make every effort to ensure from the averments of the writ petition, whether there exist proper pleadings. In order to maintain the writ of mandamus, the first and foremost requirement is that the petition must not be frivolous, and must be filed in good faith. Additionally, the applicant must make a demand which is clear, plain and unambiguous.

(emphasis supplied)

Under the circumstance and for the reasons, discussed above, the writ petition stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satayendra Uploaded 16.02.2026