JAYPRAKASH PANDIT vs STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SACHIN KUMAR — JHHC10346342025
Next hearing: 06th May 2026.
CNR: JHHC010346342025
Filing Number
C.M.P./11450/2025
Filing Date
26-Sep-2025
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench Type
Single Bench
Judicial Branch
Civil Section
Last updated 04-Jun-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.JAYPRAKASH PANDIT
Adv. NIRANJAN KUMAR
-
2.ANUP PANDIT
-
3.VIDYA DEVI
-
4.MANJU DEVI
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - SACHIN KUMAR
-
2.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEOGHAR
-
3.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DEOGHAR
-
4.THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DEOGHAR
-
5.SHRI PANKAJ KUMAR
-
6.ROSHAN SINGH @ RANJEET ROSHAN
-
7.ARVIND SINGH
-
8.JATASHANKAR SINGH
-
9.LALIT KUMAR SINHA
-
10.ASHOK KUMAR SINGH
-
11.KUMAR RAVI
-
12.MANTRI BHOODAN YAGNA COMMITTEE, DEOGHAR OFFICE
-
13.SUBHASH MAHTHA
Case History
-
06-May-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar ChoudharyView PDF
-
06-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar ChoudharyView PDF
Case Summary The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the civil miscellaneous petition (C.M.P. No. 11450 of 2025) filed by Jayprakash Pandit, Anup Pandit, and Vidya Devi against the State of Jharkhand and other respondents. The petitioners' counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to raise the grounds at an appropriate stage before the appropriate court, which was granted. Additionally, an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 17277 of 2025) was rejected as not pressed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-Feb-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh KumarView PDF
-
06-Nov-2025
Lawazima
Registrar (Judicial)
-
26-Sep-2025
Case filed
Case Summary The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the civil miscellaneous petition (C.M.P. No. 11450 of 2025) filed by Jayprakash Pandit, Anup Pandit, and Vidya Devi against the State of Jharkhand and other respondents. The petitioners' counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to raise the grounds at an appropriate stage before the appropriate court, which was granted. Additionally, an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 17277 of 2025) was rejected as not pressed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts