[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Akhtari Khatun vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 6 February, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) (DB) (HB) No. 75 of 2026
----
Akhtari Khatun... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi, Advocate
Ms. Shipra Sonam, Advocate
Mr. Bipin Bihari, Advocate
Mr. Priyanshu Nilesh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II
Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, GP I
Mr. Navneet Toppo, AC to GP I
Mr. Saurav Mahto, AC to GP I
--------
th
Order No. 03: Dated 6 February, 2026
1. The instant writ petition, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, has been filed for the following relief(s):
"a. For issuance of appropriate
writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of habeas
corpus giving direction upon the respondents to produce
the corpus (son of the petitioner namely Md. Suhail
Akhtar) before the Hon'ble Court as the son of the
petitioner has been detained by the Police Officials since
27.01.2026 without giving any reasons.
b. For issuance of an appropriate
writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) commanding upon the
respondents to conduct enquiry and punish the erring
police officials for illegally detain the son of the
petitioner in lockup of the police station for more than 24
hours without assigning any reason."
2. The matter was notified on 5th February, 2026, on
urgent mention memo being moved by learned counsel for the
petitioner and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned State counsel was called upon, who sought for
adjournment for a day to come out with instruction.
Accordingly, the matter was adjourned for today. For ready
reference, order dated 05.02.2026 is quoted as under:
"1. The case has been mentioned for early hearing today at
10:30 A.M. on the ground that the writ petitioner has illegally
been detained by the police officials from 27.01.2026.
2. This Court, considering the nature of the prayer as has
been referred at the time of mentioning based upon the
pleadings has directed the office to notify this case for
hearing at 02:15 P.M. today. The case has been notified and
due communication has also been made to the learned State
Counsel.
3. The case has been heard.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
submitted that without any authority of law and even
without instituting any F.I.R., the petitioner is in illegal
custody of the police.
5. It has also been contended that the petitioner is the
student of Class-X and he is to appear in the ongoing
examination.
6. Learned State Counsel has appeared and has sought for
adjournment for today by making prayer to come with the
instruction tomorrow.
7. List this case tomorrow i.e. on 06th February, 2026 at
10:30 A.M. as a first case."
3. The matter has been taken up today.
4. Although, we have not called upon any officer, but, Mr.
Prabhat Ranjan Barwar, SDPO, Tandwa [Dy.S.P]; Mr. Anil
Uraon, Officer-in-charge, Tandwa Police Station [Inspector];
and Mr. Prashant Kumar Mishra, Officer-in-charge Lawalong
Police Station are physically present before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
after knowing institution of the case the son of the petitioner,
who was lifted by the police, has been left out in his house
today in the morning.
6. It has further been stated that however offer has been
made on behalf of police officials to the maternal uncle of the
son of the writ petitioner to have the case compromised i.e.,
the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however,
has submitted that the aforesaid facts will be brought on
record by filing affidavit before the next date of hearing of the
instant case.
7. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned AAG-II representing the
State along with Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, learned GP I; Mr.
Navneet Toppo, learned AC to GP I and Mr. Saurav Mahto,
learned AC to GP I have appeared on behalf of respondents.
8. Certain queries were put forth to the police officials
present in the Court regarding the taking away of the son of
the writ petitioner after the midnight of 26.01.2026 i.e., on
27.01.2026 from his residence, which is situated in Lawalong
Police Station.
9. The SDPO, Tandwa and the Officer-in-Charge of the
Lawalong Police Station have jointly stated that some
technical input was received from the technical cell of the
Police Headquarters at Chatra regarding complain of
extortion and the IMEI number of the mobile phone was
forwarded. The technical team of Chatra Police has
ascertained that the said IMEI Number is being used by the
son of the writ petitioner. Therefore, after having been
contacted with Tandwa Police Station, the police personnel of
the Lawalong Police Satiation rushed to the residence of the
petitioner where his resides and was called for interrogation.
10. It is stated that the son of the petitioner was
interrogated on 27.01.2026 and in the evening he was
handed over to his near relative i.e. maternal uncle and again
the son of the petitioner was lifted on 30.01.2026 and left out
to his maternal uncle on 31.01.2026 in morning, after
following the due procedure.
11. This Court, therefore, has posed a question that when
on the basis of imputation and input of the technical team of
Chatra District Police, the son of the writ petitioner was lifted
from his house for interrogation then as to whether the same
has been entered into the case diary, which is required to be
maintained in connection with the investigation of the
concerned case or not.
12. Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Barwar, Tandwa [Dy.S.P] at present
working as SDPO, Tandwa Police Station has very casually
said before this Court that it will be recorded in the case
diary. However, the Officer-in-Charge of the Tandwa Police
Station has stated by showing an excuse what has been said
by the SDPO, Tandwa Police Station.
13. We are conscious that the police have power for
investigation, if any input is being find out by them but at the
same time, it is important that investigation should be done
strictly in terms of the law.
14. What has been stated by the police officials present in
the Court regarding lifting of the son of the writ petitioner for
interrogation, we are not making any remarks upon the same
but the process ought to have been followed i.e., by making
reference thereof in the case diary, if not followed.
15. The veracity of the aforesaid fact as to whether the
reference of the interrogation of the son of the writ petitioner
is in the case diary or not, we have requested learned AAG-II
to get it verified from the Superintendent of Police, Chatra.
16. Learned AAG II, after seeking permission from this
Court to interact with S.P., Chatra over phone has called
upon the S.P., Chatra and has instructed the S.P., Chatra as
to whether the case diary pertaining to Tandwa Police Case
No. 26 of 2026 is lying with his office or not.
17. The S.P., Chatra has stated over phone, which was put
to microphone connected with speaker, and which was
audible to all present in the Court, that he need 50-60
minutes time to call for the case diary. The matter therefore
adjourned for few cases.
18. Again, the matter was taken up.
19. The learned AAG II has again made a call on the phone
of S.P., Chatra by putting his phone on speaker, which was
connected with Court's Mic, so that the voice of the S.P.,
Chatra be audible to all.
20. The S.P., Chatra, read out the entire case diary from the
date of institution of FIR and has also read out the fact about
the lifting of the son of the writ petitioner after midnight of
26.01.2026 i.e. on 27.01.2026 and thereafter handing over to
the family members of the writ petitioner and again the son of
the writ petitioner was lifted on 30.01.2026 for further
interrogation.
21. This Court has posed a question as to whether the case
diary has been maintained on day-to-day basis i.e., the day
when the son of the writ petitioner was lifted or at least the
following day i.e., on 27.01.2026, and subsequently on
31.01.2026, the second time the son of the writ petitioner
was called upon for interrogation.
22. The S.P., Chatra after reading out the case diary has
stated that the case diary has been written on 31.01.2026.
23. This Court, after taking note of the aforesaid fact, as per
the telephonic conversation and before passing the
appropriate order, is of the view that case diary, which has
been read out in open Court, is required to be looked into by
this Court.
24. Accordingly, the State counsel is directed to produce the
case diary which has been read out in the Court on the next
date of hearing for perusal of this Court.
25. The Superintendent of Police, Chatra and all the officers
including all the investigating officer of the present case will
remain physically present on the next date of hearing.
26. List this case on 13th February, 2026 as a first case.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Later On: 6th February, 2026
27. Although we have concluded the proceeding in the pre-
lunch Session. But when the Court has resumed its Court
proceeding in the post-lunch Session, Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi,
learned Counsel has made a mention that 6-7 Police
personnel has again rushed to the house of the writ petitioner
and threatened the maternal uncle of the son of the writ
petitioner not to go to Ranchi for filing affidavit.
28. The order which we have passed is in presence of those
three police personnel present in the Court and as such this
Court prima facie found that the information regarding filing
of an affidavit, since, has been passed in their presence and
none of the Police officials who are said to be there in the
house of the writ petitioner, therefore, these three Police
official may have communicated about the filing of the
affidavit.
29. Further, Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Barwar, SDPO, Tandwa
[Dy.S.P]; in course of interaction has also said the fact with
arrogance that if the things have not been noted in the case
diary, it will be noted down.
30. Therefore, this Court considering the seriousness of the
issue has requested the Court Master to call Mr. Sachin
Kumar, A.A.G.-II.
31. Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G.-II has come to the Court and
this Court requested him to ask again the S.P., Chatra to
participate in the proceeding through the virtual mode.
32. Mr. Sumit Kumar Agarwal, S.P., Chatra has appeared
through the virtual mode and when the Court has disclosed
the allegation, which has been made by petitioner in post-
lunch session, he has stated that he will personally look into
the matter.
33. This Court, therefore, hereby directs the S.P., Chatra to
conduct an enquiry regarding the presence of the Police
personnel as also the conduct of the Mr. Prabhat Ranjan
Barwar, SDPO, Tandwa [Dy.S.P]; and other police officials
regarding their involvement in the matter and submit a report
on the next date of hearing.
34. The threat, if it has been given not to go to the High
Court for filing affidavit amounts to interference with the
Judicial administration.
35. However, the S.P., Chatra, since, has said that he will
personally look into the matter and as such this Court is
adjourning the matter for passing further necessary order on
the next date of hearing.
36. List this case on 13.02.2026.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
6th February, 2026
Alankar/-
