WASIM AKRAM vs STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - MANOJ KR MISHRA — Cr.M.P./1383/2026
Case under An Application U/s 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 84,BNSS. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 08th May 2026.
CNR: JHHC010142302026
Filing Number
Cr.M.P./9176/2026
Filing Date
28-04-2026
Registration No
Cr.M.P./1383/2026
Registration Date
05-05-2026
Judge
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Coram
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
Quashing Matter ( 206 )
Sub-Category
Quashing of Order ( 6 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
08th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
WASIM AKRAM
Adv. AKHOURI AWINASH KUMAR,ASHWINI PRIYA,ASHWINI PRIYA, ,ASHWINI PRIYA
Respondent(s)
STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - MANOJ KR MISHRA
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Fresh Filing (Admission)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-05-2026 | Fresh Filing (Admission) |
Orders
Case Summary: Cr.M.P. No. 1383/2026 Decision: The High Court of Jharkhand allowed the petition and quashed the proclamation order dated 18.04.2026 issued by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajmahal. Key Reasoning: The court held that when issuing a proclamation under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, the magistrate must specify the time and place for the accused's appearance in the order itself. Since the learned magistrate failed to mention these details, the proclamation order was not sustainable in law and was accordingly quashed, with directions to pass a fresh order in compliance with legal requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Cr.M.P. No. 1383/2026 Decision: The High Court of Jharkhand allowed the petition and quashed the proclamation order dated 18.04.2026 issued by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajmahal. Key Reasoning: The court held that when issuing a proclamation under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, the magistrate must specify the time and place for the accused's appearance in the order itself. Since the learned magistrate failed to mention these details, the proclamation order was not sustainable in law and was accordingly quashed, with directions to pass a fresh order in compliance with legal requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts