[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Kadam Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 February, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2026:JHHC:3379-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 696 of 2025
-----
Kadam Singh, son of Hadamat Singh, aged about 35 years, resident of
Vada Bharvi, Village-Jalor, P.O. and P.S. Jalor, District- Jalor, State-
Rajasthan ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Director General of Police, Jharkhand, having its office at Jharkhand
Police Headquarters, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. - Dhurwa, P.S. -
Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi
3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, having its office at Ranchi,
P.O. and P.S. - Ranchi, District - Ranchi, State - Jharkhand
4. Superintendent of Police, Latehar, having its office at Latehar, P.O.
and P.S. Latehar, District - Latehar, State- Jharkhand
5. Officer-in-Charge, Chandwa Police Station, P.O. and P.S. Chandwa,
District- Latehar, State- Jharkhand
6. Vinita Kumari, wife of Kadam Singh, and daughter of Babulal
Prajapati, aged about 21 years, Village-Rol, resident of 70, Rol, Rol,
Rol, P.O. and P.S. Chandwa, District - Chandwa, State - Jharkhand
7. Babulal Prajapati, son of not known, resident of 70 Rol, Rol, Rol, P.O.
and P.S. Chandwa, District - Chandwa, State - Jharkhand
... ... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Srikant Swaroop, A.C. to A.A.G.-II
For the Resp. Nos. 6&7 : Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Advocate
------
Order No. 04/Dated 09th February, 2026
1. Reference may be made to the order dated 08th January, 2026, in
pursuance thereto, the father of the respondent no. 6 and the
respondent no. 7 are present. The writ petitioner is also present.
2. This Court has interacted with the respondent no. 6 as to
whether she wants to live with the writ petitioner, since he is
claiming that he has solemnized marriage with the respondent
no. 6. The respondent no. 6 has straightway stated that she does
not want to live with the writ petitioner.
Page 1
2026:JHHC:3379-DB
3. Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-wife, has submitted that once the father and the girl
were also threatened, the said incident was reported to the
police.
4. Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner, has submitted that, based on the statement of
Respondent No. 7 as recorded hereinabove, he does not intend
to press the instant writ petition.
5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition being W.P.(Criminal) No.
696 of 2025 is dismissed as not pressed.
6. It is made clear that the writ petitioner shall not create any
untoward situation or issue any threat of any nature. If such a
situation arises, it shall be reported to the police, who will
proceed in accordance with the law.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
09.02.2026
Umesh/Abhishek
Page 2
