DEEPMALA KUMARI ALIAS MADAM MALA ALIAS DEEPMALA vs STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - RAJNEESH VARDHAN — Cr.M.P./3104/2025
Case under An Application U/s 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 08th May 2026.
CNR: JHHC010345272025
Filing Number
Cr.M.P./23133/2025
Filing Date
26-09-2025
Registration No
Cr.M.P./3104/2025
Registration Date
17-10-2025
Judge
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Coram
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE ( 121 )
Sub-Category
Restoration ( 18 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
08th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DEEPMALA KUMARI ALIAS MADAM MALA ALIAS DEEPMALA
Adv. KUSHAL KUMAR
Respondent(s)
STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - RAJNEESH VARDHAN
JASPAL SINGH SALUJA
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Admission
Admission
Admission
Admission
Admission
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-11-2025 | Admission |
| 08-05-2026 | Admission |
| 01-05-2026 | Admission |
| 24-04-2026 | Admission |
| 17-04-2026 | Admission |
Orders
Case Summary: Cr.M.P. No.3104 of 2025 The Jharkhand High Court restored ABA Filing No.16218 of 2025 to its original file after it was dismissed for non-compliance with a peremptory order dated 15.09.2025. The petitioner's counsel explained that the pairvikar (witness) could not appear on time, preventing the filing of the required affidavit. The Court found sufficient cause for restoration, as the State raised no serious objection, and accordingly disposed of the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Cr.M.P. No.3104 of 2025 The Jharkhand High Court restored ABA Filing No.16218 of 2025 to its original file after it was dismissed for non-compliance with a peremptory order dated 15.09.2025. The petitioner's counsel explained that the pairvikar (witness) could not appear on time, preventing the filing of the required affidavit. The Court found sufficient cause for restoration, as the State raised no serious objection, and accordingly disposed of the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts