Disposed¶18

Ram Naresh Ram v. the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance Acb

Jharkhand HC11 Jul 2025Cr.M.P./835/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand HC, Cr.M.P. No.835 of 2022, decided 11.07.2025, Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.; sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act; belated sanction; competent/sanctioning authority; validity of sanction to be tested at trial stage by evidence and questioning the sanctioning authority; liberty to raise legal issues before trial Court; petition disposed of; Vigilance Case No.05 of 2017; ACB Hazaribag P.S. Case No.12 of 2016; petitioner Ram Naresh Ram @ Ram Naresh Kumar; State of Jharkhand through Vigilance/ACB.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to raise all available legal issues on the issue of sanction at the appropriate stage for consideration by the learned trial Court in accordance with law. ¶18

Ram Naresh Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance Acb — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

 2025:JHHC:18825

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.835 of 2022

¶3

------

¶4

Ram Naresh Ram @ Ram Naresh Kumar, aged about 41 years, son of Sri Ganauri Ram, resident of village: Semari, P. & P.S: Patan, Dist: Palamau (Jharkhand) …. …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance/ACB

¶7

.... .... Opp. Party

¶8

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. ------

¶9

06/Dated: 11.07.2025

¶10

1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, learned Spl. P.P. for the Opp. Party-State.

¶11

2. The instant case has been filed challenging the order dated 13.11.2019 by which the objection raised by the petitioner by an application dated 10.07.2017 under Section 19 of the P.C. Act has been rejected as becoming infructuous in Vigilance Case NO.05 of 2017 arising out of ACB Hazaribag P.S. Case No.12 of 2016.

¶12

3. The ground has been taken that sanction has been taken belatedly and not by the competent authority.

¶13

4. Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, learned Spl. P.P. for the State-Opp. Party has submitted that since it is not a case of cognizance having been taken without any sanction, rather, it is a case of questioning the validity of the authority who has accorded sanction.

¶14

¶15

 2025:JHHC:18825

¶16

5. The said aspect of the matter can only be agitated by the accused person in course of trial by leading evidence by putting question to the authority who has accorded sanction.

¶17

6. Upon this, Mr. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he may be given liberty to raise all the available legal issues at the appropriate stage for its consideration by the learned trial Court.

¶18

7. Considering the same, the instant petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the available legal issues on the issue of sanction at the appropriate stage for its consideration in accordance with law by the learned trial Court.

¶19

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶20

Rohit/-

¶21

Ram Naresh Ram v. the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance Acb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Naresh Ram v. the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance Acb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahil Ratusaria Vs the Union of India through CBI

Bali Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through Acb

Dilip Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand through Anti Corruption Bureau (Acb) Ranchi

Chandra Prakash Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sahedeo Prasad Alias Sahdeo Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand through CBI

Bhim Sharma Alias Bhim Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand through Acb Vigilance