Allowed

Mukesh Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Sept 2026Cr.M.P./620/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge order restoring a dismissed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition to its original file due to the petitioner's counsel's non-appearance caused by a medical emergency, after no serious objection was raised by respondents.

What did the court decide?

Cr.M.P. No.2244 of 2023 is directed to be restored to its original file at the stage before its dismissal. Registry to list it before the appropriate Bench after four weeks.

Mukesh Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:JHHC:27466]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.620 of 2026

¶3

Mukesh Yadav, aged about 34 years, Son of Pradeep Gope, resident of Village – Ramnager, P.O. & P.S. – Sadar Hazaribag, District – Hazaribag.

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Malti Devi, wife of Mukesh Yadav, Resident of Ramnager, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, Hazaribag at present K.B. Women’s College, Hazaribag, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribag

¶8

… Opposite Parties

¶9

------

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate ------

¶12

Order No:-04 Dated:-11-09-2026

¶13

Heard the parties.

¶14

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer for restoration of Cr.M.P. No.2244 of 2023 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 24.11.2025.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Cr.M.P. No.2244 of 2023 was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 24.11.2025. It is next submitted that the learned counsel was suffering from heart ailment and got operated; as such, he could not appear before the court when the said Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was called out; which resulted in dismissal of the said Criminal Miscellaneous Petition for non-prosecution vide order dated 24.11.2025. It is further submitted that non-appearance of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the

¶16

petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said Cr.M.P. No.2244 of 2023 and unless the same is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the Cr.M.P. No.2244 of 2023 be restored to its original file.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 have not raised any serious objection to the prayer of the petitioner.

¶18

Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Cr.M.P. No.2244 of 2023 is directed to be restored to its original file at the same stage at which it was before its dismissal.

¶19

Registry is directed to list Cr.M.P. No.2244 of 2023 before the appropriate Bench after four weeks.

¶20

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶21

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶22

Dated:- 11.09.2026 Saroj/

Mukesh Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Yadav v. 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