Dismissed¶54

Suma Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Mar 2026Cr.M.P./3349/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition with liberty to raise grounds before appropriate court; Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi; Cr.M.P. No.3349 of 2023; Order No.07 dated 09-03-2026; Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary; forty-one petitioners of Village Vijaiya, P.S. Barhi, District Hazaribag; opposite parties State of Jharkhand and Chetlal Mahto; dismissed as withdrawn; advocates Lalan Kr. Singh (petitioners), Shailesh Kr. Sinha Addl.P.P. (State), Md. Faruque Ansari (O.P. No.2).

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition with liberty to raise all the grounds taken therein before the appropriate court at the appropriate stage; petition dismissed as withdrawn with that liberty. ¶54

Suma Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2026:JHHC:6160] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3349 of 2023

¶2

Suma Devi, aged about 45 years, W/o- Raju Mahto,

¶3

Raju Mahto, aged about 55 years, S/o- Chhatu Mahto

¶4

Horil Mahto, aged about 51 years, S/o- Rooplal Mahto,

¶5

Sakunti Devi, aged about 47 years, W/o- Horil Mahto

¶6

Triloki Mahto, aged about 29 years, S/o- Horil Mahto,

¶7

Dayanand Kumar, aged about 21 years, S/o- Horil Mahto,

¶8

Laldhari Mahto, aged about 41 years, S/o- Rooplal Mahto,

¶9

Rekha Devi, aged about 44 years, W/o- Laldhari Mahto,

¶10

Teklal Mahto, aged about 45 years, S/o- Rooplal Mahto,

¶11

Manju Devi, aged about 42 years, W/o- Teklal Mahto,

¶12

Gendiya Devi, aged about 70 years, W/o- Rooplal Mahto,

¶13

Govind Mahto @ Govind Prasad, aged about 40 years, S/oRooplal Mahto,

¶14

Sangita Devi, aged about 33 years, W/o- Govind Prasad,

¶15

Gulabi Devi, aged about 67 years, W/o- Mohan Mahto,

¶16

Shankar Kumar, aged about 32 years, S/O – Mohan Mahto,

¶17

Mala Devi, aged about 32 years, W/O- Shankar Mahto,

¶18

Krishna Kumar, aged about 39 years, S/O – Mohan Mahto,

¶19

Shanti Devi, aged about 52 years, W/o- Rameshwar Mahto,

¶20

Sahdev Mahto, aged about 39 years, S/O - Rameshwar Mahto,

¶21

Shila Devi, aged about 34 years, W/o- Sahdev Mahto,

¶22

Ghanshyam Mahto, aged about 36 years, S/O - Rameshwar Mahto,

¶23

Lalita Devi, aged about 30 years, W/O - Ghanshyam Mahto,

¶24

Vikash Kumar, aged about 33 years, S/O- Rameshwar Mahto,

¶25

Suman Devi, aged about 29 years, W/O - Vikash Kumar,

¶26

Virendra Mahto @ Virendra Kumar, aged about 33 years, S/oRaju Mahto,

¶27

Lakshmi Devi, aged about 27 years, D/o- Sitaram Verma,

¶28

Surendra Kumar, aged about 31 years, S/o- Raju Mahto,

¶29

Sarita Devi, aged about 29 years, W/o- Surendra Kumar,

¶30

Ramchandra Mahto, aged about 69 years, S/o-Bishun Mahto,

¶31

Yashoda Devi, aged about 62 years, W/o- Ramchandra Mahto

¶32

Drwa Devi, aged about 51 years, W/o- Ramchandra Mahto,

¶33

Lakhan Mahto, aged about 39 years, S/o-Ramchandra Mahto,

¶34

Chinta Devi, aged about 37 years, S/o- Lakhan Mahto,

¶35

Mahesh Prasad, aged about 34 years, S/o-Ramchandra Mahto,

¶36

Babita Devi, aged about 30 years, W/o- Mahesh Mahto,

¶37

Ruplal Mahto @ Ruplal Prasad, aged about 33 years, S/oRamchandra Mahto,

¶38

Shila Devi, aged about 33 years, W/o- Ruplal Prasad,

¶39

Sobran Mahto, aged about 71 years, S/o- Vajir Mahto,

¶40

Basudev Prasad, aged about 42 years, S/o- Sobran Mahto,

¶41

Chandrashekhar Prasad @ Chandrashekhar Pd. Kushwaha aged about 36 years, S/o- Sobran Mahto,

¶42

Mamta Devi, aged about 33 years, W/o-Chandrashekhar Prasad Kushwaha, All Resident of Village- Vijaiya, P.O. & P.S.- Barhi, Dist. Hazaribag. … Petitioners

¶43

Versus

¶44

The State of Jharkhand

¶45

Chetlal Mahto, aged about 48 years, S/o- Late Haridayal Mahto, Village- Vijaiya, P.O. & P.S.- Barhi, Dist.- Hazaribag

¶46

… Opposite Parties

¶47

------

¶48

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶49

------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Lalan Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl.P. P. For the O.P. No.2 : Md. Faruque Ansari, Advocate ------

¶50

Order No:-07 Dated:-09-03-2026

¶51

Heard parties.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners seek permission of this Court to withdraw this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition with liberty to raise all the grounds taken in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition before the appropriate court at the appropriate stage.

¶53

Permission is accorded.

¶54

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioners.

¶55

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶56

Dated-09.03.2026-Animesh/

Suma Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suma Devi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manish Kumar @ Manish Rana @ Chhotu Vs State of Jharkhand

Prakash Pradhan Vs State of Jharkhand

Krishna Kumar Gupta Alias Kaju Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sukhdeo Kumar Sharma Alias Sukhdeo Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand