Akhtari Khatun vs The State Of Jharkhand& Ors on 19 March, 2026

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 W.P. (Cr.) (D.B.) (H.B) 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 SANJAY PRASAD

-------

For the Petitioner :Mr. Amitabh Prasad,Advocate For the Respondents :Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II Mr. Anil Kumar Singh AC to GP-I

------

th Order No.07/Dated:19 March, 2026

1. Reference may be made to the order dated 09.03.2026, in pursuance thereto the S.P, Chatra is present in the Court.

2. This Court by the aforesaid order has taken note of the fact in entirety and in order to pass further necessary order the writ petitioner, namely, Akhtari Khatun, Md. Gulam and Md. Abdul Hakim have been directed to appear physically, for ready reference the order dated 09.03.2026 is being referred hereunder as:

"1.Mr. Sumit Kr. Agrawal, S.P., Chatra is present in the Court in pursuance of the order dated 27.02.2026.

2. It has been stated by the S.P., Chatra that the erring officials, i.e., Officer in-charge of Tandwa Police Station, namely, Anil Oraon and the investigating officer of the Tandwa P.S. Case No. 26 of 2026, namely, Amit Kumar have been put under suspension in contemplation of the departmental proceeding. It has also been stated that the departmental proceeding has also been initiated.

3. We have found a communication under the signature of one constable of Tandwa Police Station, namely, Vishwanath Bedia having Araji No. 464 that the son of the writ petitioner has been handed over in favour of his maternal uncle, namely, Md. Gulam, resident of Village-Edla Tola, P.S.- Simaria, District-Chatra.

4. The writ petitioner, namely, Akhtari Khatun has stated in open court that her son had come to the residence on 06.02.2026. Subsequently, she has stated that by disclosing the name of her cousin brother, namely, Md. Gulam that the said Md. Gulam has also come to the Court but he is outside the Court room.

5. This Court, therefore, has adjourned the matter for few cases and directed the learned counsel for the writ petitioner to call the said Md. Gulam.

6. The said Md. Gulam has appeared in the Court and has stated that although at the time of filing, the writ petitioner, namely, Akhtari Khatun has come along with her another cousin, namely, Md. Abdul Hakim.

7. This Court, in order to ascertain as to whether the said Md. Gulam has come at the time of filing of the writ petition, has also called upon Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi, the earlier counsel for the writ petitioner on record since after giving no objection in favour of Mr. Amitabh Prasad, he has not appeared in the case.

8. Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi, erstwhile counsel for the writ petitioner has appeared and corroborated that the writ petitioner had not come with this Md. Gulam rather she came along with Md. Abdul Hakim.

9. This Court when has asked about the whereabouts of Md. Abdul Hakim from the writ petitioner as also from Md. Gulam, both have jointly stated that Md. Abdul Hakim resides in Raipur district of Chattisgarh.

10. This Court, subsequent thereto, has again posed a question to the writ petitioner and his cousin brother, namely, Md. Gulam that if the son has already been handed over to Md. Gulam, then, what was the need to file the writ petition on 04.02.2026. If that be so, then, there was no occasion to file writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and on the basis of the pleading made as was presented by Md. Bhaskar Trivedi, erstwhile learned counsel for the writ petitioner, this Court passed an order on 06.02.2026.

11. It is evident from the order dated 06.02.2026 that when the officers of the Tandwa Police Station including the SDPO, the officer in-charge and the investigating officer had appeared then only it was informed that the son of the writ petitioner has been handed on 31.01.2026 but while placing the matter, Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi, erstwhile learned counsel for the writ petitioner on 06.02.2026 has disclosed that the son was only left out on 06.02.2026 and that is the reason, the writ petition was filed on 04.02.2026 and immediately thereafter, the son of the writ petitioner was released.

12. This Court interacted with the writ petitioner who has stated that her son had reached to the house on 06.02.2026 but when this Court has put a question to Md. Gulam that when the son of the writ petitioner was handed over on 31.01.2026 then why it was not informed to the writ petitioner. Md. Gulam has stated that he was having no telephonic facility including the mobile number, as such, he has not communicated the same even to Md. Abdul Hakim who now resides in Raipur, Chattisgarh.

13. This Court, in view of the aforesaid statement having been recorded hereinabove, is of the view that there is something which is being suppressed.

14. This Court, in view of the aforesaid pretext, is hereby, directing the S.P., Chatra to conduct enquiry and submit report by 19.03.2026.

15. Accordingly, let this case be listed on 19.03.2026.

16. On that date, the writ petitioner, namely, Akhtari Khatun; Md. Gulam, and Md. Abdul Hakim shall appear physically.

17. The S.P., Chatra shall also remain present physically on that date for the purpose of passing further necessary order.

18. Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi, erstwhile learned counsel for the writ petitioner shall also remain present on that date."

3. The S.P., Chatra is present and has producedthe statement recorded by himwho has recorded the statement of the writ petitioner, namely, Akhtari Khatoon and Md. Gulam and other persons to reach to the rightful conclusion. He has submitted that the notice has also been issued for recording statement of Md. Abdul Hakim and Md. Suhail Akhtar (son of the writ petitioner) who has been said to be traceless for which the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Let the said report be kept on record.

5. Md. Abdul Hakim is the maternal uncle of Md. Suhail Akhtar (Corpus herein) and cousin brother of the writ petitioner who has alleged against the concerned district police that she has been forced for not pressing the instant writ petition and the aforesaid fact was submitted by the erstwhile learned counsel, namely, Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi engaged in the matter on behalf of the writ petitioner. Thereafter, another learned counsel, namely, Mr. Amitabh Prasadhas put his appearance on behalf of the writ petitionerafter getting "No Objection Certificate" from the earlier learned counsel, namely, Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi, and he has filed an interlocutory application being I.A No.2933 of 2026 for withdrawal of the present writ petition.

6. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, the learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned AAG-II representing the S.P., Chatrahas submitted that in order to come to the rightful conclusionthe S.P., Chatra has thought it proper to record the statement of the writ petitioner and other persons including the said Md. Abdul Hakim and Md. Suhail Akhtar (Corpus herein) but they have not turned up.

7. This Court vide order dated 09.03.2026 has also passed a specific direction for physical appearance of said Md. Abdul Hakim with the writ petitioner, namely, Aakhtari Khatoon and Md. Gulam, but he is also not present today in the Court, although the writ petitioner and Md. Gulam are present in the Court.

8. Mr. Amitabh Prasad, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner has emphatically submitted that the said Md. Abdul Hakim has not come in the Court today due to some personal reason, but no such application has been filed seeking exemption from personal appearance.

9. We never grant exemption from personal appearance but such exemption is to be granted if any application to that effect is to be filed. In absence of any application no such exemption can be granted that too, when the Court has passed a specific direction of physical appearance of said Md. Abdul Hakim and even the notice issued by the S.P., Chatra for appearance of the said Md. Abdul Hakim has also not adhered to.

10.Taking into consideration the conduct of Md. Abdul Hakim, we are inclined to issue Bailable Warrant of arrest against him, but refraining ourselves today we are passing the order by giving an opportunity to Md. Abdul Hakim to appear before this Court on the next date of hearing, failing which this Court will constrain to pass appropriate order on the next date of hearing.

11. In the present case, the presence of the S.P, Chatra is required. However, the learned Advocate General has submitted that since "Eid" and "Ram Navami" festivals are there on 21.03.2026 and 27.03.2026, respectively and, as such, due to that reason the involvement of the S.P, Chatra to maintain the law and order situation is required in the concerned district and, therefore, he has prayed that this matter may be listed after both festivals.

12.This Court, considering the nature of the case having urgency was to fix the case in the next week only, but as has been submitted by the learned Advocate General, considering the genuineness of the reason, the matter is being listed on 01.04.2026.

13.The S.P, Chatra shall also remain present physically on the next date of hearing.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated:19.03.2026 Sudhir