SHAH ARAF EQUBAL vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - MANOJ KUMAR — Cr.M.P./619/2025
Case under An Application U/s 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528. Next hearing: : -.
CNR: JHHC010046362025
Filing Number
Cr.M.P./3134/2025
Filing Date
07-Feb-2025
Registration No
Cr.M.P./619/2025
Registration Date
11-Mar-2025
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE ( 121 )
Sub-Category
Restoration ( 18 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Last updated 04-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SHAH ARAF EQUBAL
Adv. LAKHAN CHANDRA ROY
-
2.SHAH HALIM EQUBAL
-
3.SHAH MAZAHAR EQUBAL
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - MANOJ KUMAR
-
2.RAHUL KUMAR CHOUBE
-
3.SANJARI KHATOON
-
4.SAH MANAUWAR EQBAL
Case History
-
—
Next hearingPending
-
08-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar ChoudharyView PDF
-
08-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar ChoudharyView PDF
The High Court of Jharkhand allowed the petitioners' interlocutory application for substituted service of notice on opposite party no.2 via publication in Prabhat Khabar newspaper (Deoghar Edition), finding that the respondent was deliberately avoiding effective service. The petitioners were directed to file a draft publication within two weeks and a supplementary affidavit with proof of publication within ten weeks, with dismissal of the petition as consequence of non-compliance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-Feb-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar ChoudharyView PDF
-
29-Aug-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar ChoudharyView PDF
-
21-Mar-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar ChoudharyView PDF
-
25-Feb-2025
Lawazima
Registrar (Judicial)
-
07-Feb-2025
Case filed
Registration No. Cr.M.P./619/2025
The High Court of Jharkhand allowed the petitioners' interlocutory application for substituted service of notice on opposite party no.2 via publication in Prabhat Khabar newspaper (Deoghar Edition), finding that the respondent was deliberately avoiding effective service. The petitioners were directed to file a draft publication within two weeks and a supplementary affidavit with proof of publication within ten weeks, with dismissal of the petition as consequence of non-compliance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts