Dismissed¶19

Shiv Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Jul 2026Cr.M.P./1287/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand HC Cr.M.P. No.1287 of 2026; Section 528 BNSS 2023; prayer to extend time for surrender under order dated 12.11.2020 in A.B.A. No.4236 of 2020; petitioner Shiv Kumar Singh; opposite parties State of Jharkhand and Sudha Singh; grounds vague (circumstances beyond control; work in Gujarat); condition not to annoy or disturb complainant; absence over five years; not a fit case; Cr.M.P. dismissed on 10-07-2026; Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary.

What did the court decide?

The Court found the petitioner's sole grounds for extension — circumstances beyond his control and his having gone to Gujarat to earn a livelihood — to be vague, since it is highly unlikely he would not visit his village for over five years without giving any specific details of the work done in Gujarat. ¶17

Shiv Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:20536 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1287 of 2026

¶2

Shiv Kumar Singh, aged about 51 years, son of Late Bhim Singh, resident of H.No.-135, Village-Bankheta Haritola, P.O. + P.S. + District-Ramgarh.

¶3

… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Sudha Singh W/o Late Siddeshwar Singh, resident of BJ-83, Tagore Path, Near Milonee Club, Bijulia, P.O. & P.S-Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh.

¶7

… Opposite Parties

¶8

------

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sourav Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Agnivesh, Advocate For the State : Ms. Shweta Singh, Addl.P.P. For the OP 2 : Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha, Advocate ------

¶11

Order No:-03 Dated:-10-07-2026

¶12

Heard the parties.

¶13

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 with the prayer to modify the order dated 12.11.2020 passed in A.B.A. No.4236 of 2020 by extending the time for surrender of the petitioner before the court concerned in terms of the said order.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner, he could not comply the direction of this Court to surrender before the court concerned within six weeks. It is next submitted that the petitioner was under genuine impression that his counsel would inform him of the appropriate date and inadvertently the delay occurred because the petitioner went for work and earn livelihood in the State of Gujarat. It is next submitted that the petitioner is still ready and willing to comply the order dated 12.11.2020,

¶15

hence, it is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for, in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.

¶16

Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that though in the order dated 12.11.2020 passed in A.B.A. No.4236 of 2020 by this Court, it has been mentioned that the petitioner will not annoy or disturb the complainant in any manner during the pendency of the case and the petitioner hoodwinked the said condition and disobeyed the same has cunningly absconding for over 05 years and has annoyed and disturbed the complainant severely by selling the land of complainant and in view of this misconduct on the part of the petitioner and his vague claim that due to circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner, the petitioner could not surrender within the time granted to the petitioner to surrender in the Court concerned; the prayer made by the petitioner ought not be allowed and this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶17

Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that the only ground mentioned in the petition for extension of time for the petitioner to appear before the court concerned of six weeks from 12.11.2020 is that for the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner, the petitioner could not appear within the stipulated time; which is no doubt a vague circumstance and the further contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner went to Gujarat to earn his livelihood is also a vague one; as it is highly unlikely that the petitioner will not visit his village for over 05 years from Gujarat where he claims to have gone to work, that too without giving any specific details as to what was the nature of the work, the petitioner was doing in Gujarat and what was the reason which did not allow him to come to his village for over 05 years.

¶18

Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that in view of the conduct of the petitioner, this is not a fit case where the time of the petitioner for appear before the court concerned in terms of the order dated 12.11.2020 passed in A.B.A. No.4236 of 2020 by this Court be allowed.

¶19

Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.

¶20

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶21

10/07/2026 Abhiraj/

Shiv Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Quaium Ansari Alias Master Alias MD Kaum Khan Alias Kaum Miyan Alias Kaum Ansari Alias MD Kaum Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amaresh Prakash Vs the State of Jharkhand

Purushottam Kumar Yadav Alias Fakku Alias Purshottm Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sara Malto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt. Fulwanti Marandi Vs Jonathan Kisku

Mamta Upadhyay Lal Vs the State of Jharkhand