Partly allowed

James Quillick v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Sept 2026Cr.M.P./1762/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court of Jharkhand allowed the petitioner's prayer for a six-week extension. The petitioner could not surrender on the date fixed in the earlier anticipatory bail order due to lack of funds but later deposited the bond. The court modified the earlier order to grant the extension.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition allowed; Order dated 31.08.2023 in A.B.A. No.4981 of 2023 modified to allow surrender within six weeks from the date of this order.

James Quillick Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:27439 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1762 of 2026

¶2

James Quillick, aged about 50 years, S/o William Quillick, R/o G/2, Birenu Prabhas Manjuri Apartment, Carmel School Road, Kagalnagar, P.O. & P.S.-Sonari, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.

¶3

… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Vandana Quillick, aged about 43 years, w/o James Quillick, R/o -L19/1, Gurudwara Line Moubhandra, P.O. & P.S.-Ghatshila, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand and permanent address G/2, Birenu Prabhas Manjuri Apartment, Carmel School Road, Kagalnagar, P.O. & P.S.-Sonari, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.

¶7

… Opposite Parties

¶8

-----CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Nirupama, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl.P.P. (Vc)

¶10

------

¶11

Order No:-03 Dated:-11-09-2026

¶12

Heard the parties.

¶13

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer for modification of the order dated 31.08.2023 passed in A.B.A. No.4981 of 2023.

¶14

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 31.08.2023 passed in A.B.A. No.4981 of 2023, the petitioner was given the privileges of anticipatory bail and directed to surrender in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila on 19.09.2023 and upon depositing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties, the petitioner was to be enlarged on bail. It is next submitted that due to paucity of money, the petitioner could not make the said deposit within the stipulated time, hence, he could not surrender within the stipulated time. It is next submitted that in the meantime the petitioner has arranged the money and made the said deposit, the copy of which has been annexed with this criminal miscellaneous petition. It is further submitted that now the petitioner is ready and willing to

¶15

surrender before the learned court below and unless six weeks’ extension is granted to him, he will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the time period for the petitioner to surrender before the court below in terms of the order dated 31.08.2023 passed in A.B.A. No.4981 of 2023 be extended by six weeks from the date of this order.

¶16

Considering the facts of this case and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the prayer for extension of time for the petitioner to surrender in the court below in terms of the order dated 31.08.2023 passed in A.B.A. No.4981 of 2023 is allowed. Accordingly, the order dated 31.08.2023 passed in A.B.A. No.4981 of 2023 is modified by directing the petitioner to surrender within six weeks from the date of this order, in terms of the order dated 31.08.2023 passed in A.B.A. No.4981 of 2023.

¶17

The order dated 31.08.2023 passed in A.B.A. No.4981 of 2023 is modified to the aforesaid extent only.

¶18

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶19

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶20

11/09/2026 Abhiraj/

James Quillick v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

James Quillick v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases