SURENDRA PRASAD vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - PANKAJ KUMAR — Cr.M.P./1313/2026

Case under An Application U/s 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528. Disposed: Uncontested--Dissmiss For Default/Non-Prosecution on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: JHHC010452902025

Filing Number

Cr.M.P./29898/2025

Filing Date

23-Dec-2025

Registration No

Cr.M.P./1313/2026

Registration Date

01-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE ( 121 )

Sub-Category

Restoration ( 18 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Dissmiss For Default/Non-Prosecution

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

An Application U/s 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SURENDRA PRASAD

    Adv. AVNISH KUMAR PATHAK,RAHUL KUMAR MISHRA,RAHUL KUMAR MISHRA, ,RAHUL KUMAR MISHRA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - PANKAJ KUMAR

  2. 2.SHIV KUMAR BHARDWAJ

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar ChoudharyView PDF

    The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed Surendra Prasad's criminal miscellaneous petition (Cr.M.P. No.1313/2026) for non-prosecution on 08-05-2026. The petitioner failed to appear despite repeated calls, while the State's counsel argued the petition lacked merit, demonstrating the petitioner's lack of diligence in pursuing the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-May-2026

    Admission

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary

  4. 29-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 23-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. Cr.M.P./1313/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed Surendra Prasad's criminal miscellaneous petition (Cr.M.P. No.1313/2026) for non-prosecution on 08-05-2026. The petitioner failed to appear despite repeated calls, while the State's counsel argued the petition lacked merit, demonstrating the petitioner's lack of diligence in pursuing the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case