Disposed¶16

Vivek Kumar Alias Vivek Kumar Chandravanshi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Dec 2025Cr.M.P./2358/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; Cr.M.P. No.2358 of 2025; Vivek Kumar @ Vivek Kumar Chandravanshi v. The State of Jharkhand; restoration of bail application B.A. No.3562 of 2025 dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 02.05.2025 (supplementary affidavit to be filed within two weeks); order dated 05-12-2025 by Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary; Cr.M.P. disposed of; no serious objection by State (Addl.P.P. Suraj Deo Munda); petitioner's advocate Sheo Kr. Singh.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of B.A. No.3562 of 2025 to its original file at the same stage at which it stood before its dismissal, with the Registry directed to list it before the concerned Bench after a week. ¶16

Vivek Kumar Alias Vivek Kumar Chandravanshi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 2025:JHHC:36960 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2358 of 2025

¶2

Vivek Kumar @ Vivek Kumar Chandravanshi, aged about 25 years, S/o Late Sunil Ram, R/o At-Jail Hata Mohalla, PO & PS-Daltonganj, District-Palamau, Jharkhand.

¶3

… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶6

------

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, Addl.P.P. ------

¶9

Order No:-03 Dated:-05-12-2025

¶10

Heard the parties.

¶11

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for restoration of B.A. No.3562 of 2025 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 02.05.2025.

¶12

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that B.A. No.3562 of 2025 stood dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 02.05.2025 for filing the supplementary affidavit within two weeks. It is next submitted that as no pairvikar was present in High Court of Jharkhand, the petitioner could not file the said supplementary affidavit within the stipulated time ; which resulted in dismissal of the said B.A. No.3562 of 2025 for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 02.05.2025. It is next submitted that noncompliance of peremptory order dated 02.05.2025 was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said B.A. No.3562 of 2025 and unless the same is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the B.A. No.3562 of 2025 be restored to its original file.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the State has not raised any serious objection.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the facts of this case, B.A. No.3562 of 2025 is directed to be restored to its original file at the same stage at which it was before its dismissal.

¶15

Registry is directed to list B.A. No.3562 of 2025 before the concerned Bench after a week.

¶16

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶17

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶18

05/12/2025 Abhiraj/

Vivek Kumar Alias Vivek Kumar Chandravanshi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Kumar Alias Vivek Kumar Chandravanshi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ananya Sen Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Juned Ahmad Alias Juned Ahmad Diggar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhanu Pratap Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramanuj Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary, Housing Department

Sayed Arshad Nasar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Parshura Upadhayay Vs the State of Jharkhand