Mamta Nayak v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Apr 2025Cr.M.P./884/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; Cr. M.P. No. 884 of 2025; Arun Kumar Rai, J.; order dated 11.04.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:11048); restoration of A.B.A. No. 3605 of 2024 (anticipatory bail application) earlier dismissed for non-compliance with peremptory order dated 17.10.2024; grounds: counsel's absence from Ranchi for parents' treatment and intervening pooja vacation; restored to original file subject to removal of defects within two weeks; petitioners Mamta Nayak and Sudha Nayak @ Suddha Nayak vs State of Jharkhand.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of A.B.A. No. 3605 of 2024 to its original file, subject to removal of the defect(s) pointed out by the office within two weeks. ¶¶17

Mamta Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11048 )

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 884 of 2025

¶3

-----

¶4

Mamta Nayak aged about 28 years Daughter of Late Gulu Nayak resident of village – Ward no. 10, Diwansai, P.O. – Seraikella, P.S. Seraikella, Distt. Seraikella Kharsawan (Jharkhand)

¶5

Sudha Nayak @ Suddha Nayak aged about 58 years wife of Late Gulu Nayak resident of village – Ward no. 10, Diwansai, P.O. – Seraikella, P.S. – Seraikella, Distt. Seraikella – Kharsawan (Jharkhand) … … … Petitioners Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … … … Opp. Party -------

¶7

CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶8

------For the Petitioners : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shahsi Kr. Verma, A.P.P.

¶9

¶10

Order No. 05 / Dated 11^th April, 2025

¶11

Heard Mr. Ritesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioners and Mr. Shahsi Kr. Verma, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶12

This application has been filed for restoration of A.B.A. No. 3605 of 2024, which was dismissed for non compliance of the peremptory order dated 17.10.2024.

¶13

submission has been made on behalf of petitioners that on account of inability of learned counsel for the petitioners, the defect(s) could not be removed within stipulated time granted by this Court which resulted into dismissal of anticipatory bail application.

¶14

He further pointed out that as the learned counsel was out of Ranchi for the treatment of his old parents and when he returned, pooja vacation started, as such, defect(s) could not be removed within stipulated time.

¶15

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11048 )

¶16

Such submission has been made in presence of Mr. Shahsi Kr. Verma, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶17

Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and A.B.A. No. 3605 of 2024 is, hereby, restored to its original file subject to the condition that petitioners shall remove the defect(s), as pointed out . by the office, within two weeks from today

¶18

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶19

Umesh /Abhishek

Mamta Nayak v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta Nayak 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

Andev Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Uday Yadav Alias Uday Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shankar Pal Vs State of Jharkhand

Mir Ather Ali Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Manas Ranjan Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Gunjo Devi And Ors.