The Court held that it was functus officio in the present case and, therefore, dismissed the petition as not maintainable. No substantive question of law required determination as the decision relates strictly to the lack of jurisdiction due to the closure of the matter.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 131 of 2019
----Sufal Mahto @ Sufal Yadav …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ……Opposite Party ----CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. J.K. Pandey, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.
04/Dated: 02/08/2019
This Court is functus officio in this case, as such this petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
sandeep/R.S.-
Sufal Mahto @ Sufal Yadav
The State of Jharkhand
Kailash Prasad Deo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
