The criminal revision was dismissed for default as the petitioner and the opposite party number two failed to appear on multiple dates despite repeated calls, despite the presence of learned counsel for the State.
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. Revision No. 1339 of 2018
….
Bahadur Mahto …… Petitioner
Versus
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : None. For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A. P. P. For the O. P. No. 2 : None. ……
08/11.08.2023 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner and on behalf
of the opposite party no. 2 on repeated call. Learned counsel for
the State is present.
It transpires that even on 23.06.2023 and 26.07.2023 also,
nobody had appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision No. 1339 of 2018 is dismissed for default.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Kamlesh/
Bahadur Mahto
The State of Jharkhand
Rakesh Verma
Sanjay Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
