RESHAM SINGH @ RESHM vs STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - BHOLA NATH OJHA — B.A./4931/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 15(c),18(b),25,29,NDPS,ACT. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: JHHC010132122026

Filing Number

B.A./8514/2026

Filing Date

20-Apr-2026

Registration No

B.A./4931/2026

Registration Date

30-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

DRUGS & MEDICINES ( 125 )

Sub-Category

Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 ( 5 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 15(c),18(b),25,29,NDPS,ACT

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RESHAM SINGH @ RESHM

    Adv. JUHI KUMARI, ,PRATIK SEN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - BHOLA NATH OJHA

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 10-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar ChoudharyView PDF

  3. 10-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar ChoudharyView PDF

    Case Summary: B.A. 4931/2026 The Jharkhand High Court allowed Resham Singh's interlocutory application to replace his court-appointed lawyer with privately-engaged advocate Mr. Pratik Sen, citing the petitioner's constitutional right under Article 22(1) to choose his own counsel. The court criticized the Legal Services Committee's advocate for defective filing and delayed rectification. The bail application itself was adjourned for one week as the final opportunity for the petitioner to present arguments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 10-Jun-2026

    Fresh Filing (Admission)

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary

  5. 08-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 20-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. B.A./4931/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: B.A. 4931/2026 The Jharkhand High Court allowed Resham Singh's interlocutory application to replace his court-appointed lawyer with privately-engaged advocate Mr. Pratik Sen, citing the petitioner's constitutional right under Article 22(1) to choose his own counsel. The court criticized the Legal Services Committee's advocate for defective filing and delayed rectification. The bail application itself was adjourned for one week as the final opportunity for the petitioner to present arguments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case