JITENDRA PRASAD vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SHIV SHANKAR KUMAR — Cr.M.P./1192/2026
Case under An Application U/s 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 08th May 2026.
CNR: JHHC010083042026
Filing Number
Cr.M.P./5444/2026
Filing Date
11-Mar-2026
Registration No
Cr.M.P./1192/2026
Registration Date
23-Apr-2026
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
Decision Date
08-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Last updated 04-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.JITENDRA PRASAD
Adv. AKCHANSH KISHORE
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SHIV SHANKAR KUMAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar ChoudharyView PDF
Summary: The Jharkhand High Court granted Jitendra Prasad's petition to restore Cr.M.P. No.3475 of 2024 to its original file. The petition had been dismissed for non-compliance with a court order requiring deposit of Rs.1,000 with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, which the petitioner's advocate's clerk failed to do due to bonafide mistake. The court found the non-compliance was neither deliberate nor intentional and that the petitioner had good grounds to pursue the case, therefore restoring it to its original stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-May-2026
Admission
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
-
08-Apr-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. Cr.M.P./1192/2026
Summary: The Jharkhand High Court granted Jitendra Prasad's petition to restore Cr.M.P. No.3475 of 2024 to its original file. The petition had been dismissed for non-compliance with a court order requiring deposit of Rs.1,000 with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, which the petitioner's advocate's clerk failed to do due to bonafide mistake. The court found the non-compliance was neither deliberate nor intentional and that the petitioner had good grounds to pursue the case, therefore restoring it to its original stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts