Disposed

Arjun Singh @ Deva @ Deva Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Sept 2026Cr.M.P./2345/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the High Court of Jharkhand restored a dismissed Bail Application (B.A. No.2935 of 2026) to its original file due to inadvertent non-compliance with a peremptory order, absent any objection from the State.

What did the court decide?

Bail Application No. 2935 of 2026 restored to original file for listing. Petition disposed.

Arjun Singh @ Deva @ Deva Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:27447 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2345 of 2026

¶2

Arjun Singh @ Deva @ Deva Singh, aged about 29 years, son of Ram Pyare Singh, Resident of Naya Tola, Purani Sahibganj, P.O.Sahibganj & P.S.-Sahibganj (T), District-Sahibganj.

¶3

… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, Addl.P.P. ------

¶8

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

¶9

Heard the parties.

¶10

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer for restoration of B.A. No.2935 of 2026 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 05.05.2026.

¶11

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that B.A. No.2935 of 2026 stood dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 05.05.2026 for filing the supplementary affidavit peremptorily within four weeks. It is next submitted that due to inadvertence, the petitioner could not file the said supplementary affidavit within the stipulated time ; which resulted in dismissal of the said B.A. No.2935 of 2026 for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 05.05.2026. It is next submitted that non-compliance of peremptory order dated 05.05.2026 was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said B.A. No.2935 of 2026 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.2935 of 2026 be restored to its original file.

¶12

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

¶13

Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the facts of this case, B.A. No.2935 of 2026 is directed to be restored to its original file at the same stage at which it was before its dismissal.

¶14

Registry is directed to list B.A. No.2935 of 2026 before the concerned Bench after a week.

¶15

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶16

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶17

11/09/2026 Abhiraj/

Arjun Singh @ Deva @ Deva Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Singh @ Deva @ Deva Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases