Budhram Bodra vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1052 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Budhram Bodra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 February, 2026

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                                                 2026:JHHC:3816



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                      W.P.(S). No. 259 of 2011
                                                  ----------

1. Budhram Bodra, son of Late Somvar Bodra, resident of village Mamla, Post Hesadih, Police Station Tabo, District West Singhbhum;

2. Gautam, son of Late Ram Suman, resident of Ward No. 7, Main Road, Chakradharpur, Post Chakradharpur, Police Station Chakradharpur, District West Singhbhum;

3. Atawa Munda, son of Mangra Munda, resident of village Hesadih, Post Hesadih, Police Station Tabo, District West Singhbhum;

4. Ram Prasad Mandal, son of Late Rameshwar Mandal, resident of Potka P.W.D. Dak Bunglow, Chakradharpur, Post Chakradharpur, Police Station Chakradharpur, District West Singhbhum;

5. Raju Manjhi, son of Late Fatu Manjhi, resident of Gopinathpur, Chakradharpur, Post Chakradharpur, Police Station Chakradharpur, District West Singhbhum.

...... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, officiating from Project Bhawan, Post Dhurwa, Police Station Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.

3. The Chief Engineer (Mechanical), Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, officiating from Project Bhawan, Post Dhurwa, Police Station Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.

4. The Executive Engineer, Road Division, Chaibasa, officiating from Chaibasa, Post Chaibasa, Police Station Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum.

5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Road Sub Division, Majhgaon, officiating from Majhgaon, Post Chaibasa, Police Station Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum. ...... Respondents

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

               For the Petitioners        :       Mr. Raj, Advocate
               For the State              :       G.P.-III
                                              ----------
23/ 12.02.2026       Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant

application may be disposed of with liberty to raise the grievances, if so advised, in future, as he is having no instruction.

2. There is no objection from the respondents

3. Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed as not pressed with the liberty as prayed for.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) 12th February, 2026 Kunal/-

Uploaded on 13/02/2026