RANJIT KUMAR GUPTA vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SURAJ DEO MUNDA — A.B.A./2256/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 498(A),34,506,379,IPC,3/4,DP,ACT. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: JHHC010122072026

Filing Number

A.B.A./7922/2026

Filing Date

13-Apr-2026

Registration No

A.B.A./2256/2026

Registration Date

24-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

FAMILY MATTERS ( 132 )

Sub-Category

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 498(A),34,506,379,IPC,3/4,DP,ACT

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RANJIT KUMAR GUPTA

    Adv. SURAJ SINGH,SUNIL SINGH,SUNIL SINGH, ,SUNIL SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SURAJ DEO MUNDA

  2. 2.REKHA DEVI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar DwivediView PDF

    The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed Ranjit Kumar Gupta's petition, finding no basis for relief since no non-bailable warrant had been issued against him—only a summon order in the underlying complaint case. The court determined that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and there was no apprehension of arrest, thereby disposing of the petition with liberty for the petitioner to comply with the summon order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    Fresh Filing (Admission)

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

  4. 13-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. A.B.A./2256/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed Ranjit Kumar Gupta's petition, finding no basis for relief since no non-bailable warrant had been issued against him—only a summon order in the underlying complaint case. The court determined that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and there was no apprehension of arrest, thereby disposing of the petition with liberty for the petitioner to comply with the summon order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case