Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 1-55] Pali Hill Breweries Private Limited v. State of Jharkhand and Others (along with connected matters) 2026 LLBiz HC (JHA) 1 / 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 1State of Jharkhand v. Indar Oraon 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 2Shivnarayan Yadav v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 3Vinay Kumar Choubey v. State of Jharkhand 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 4Debleena Dutta...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 1-55]
Pali Hill Breweries Private Limited v. State of Jharkhand and Others (along with connected matters) 2026 LLBiz HC (JHA) 1 / 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 1
State of Jharkhand v. Indar Oraon 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 2
Shivnarayan Yadav v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 3
Vinay Kumar Choubey v. State of Jharkhand 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 4
Debleena Dutta v. Suman Kumar Ruj 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 5
State of Bihar v. Savitri Devi & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 6
Ranthi Kumari Devi v. Suresh Kumar Sahu 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 7
Dhanbad Institute of Technology v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 8
Chandramuni Urain v. Director General of Police, Jharkhand and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 9
Vijay Kumar Srivastav v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 10
Priyanka Sahi v. Sidharth Rao 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 11
Jitendra Azad v. Meena Gupta 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 12
Rakesh Kumar Jha v. State of Jharkhand 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 13
Safikul Sheikh and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 14
Naveen Kedia v. State of Jharkhand 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 15
The Federation of Jharkhand Chamber of Commerce and Industries v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 16
Arbind Sharan v. Bihar College Service Commission and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 17
Chetna Kumar v. Dr. Prasoon Kumar 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 18
Hiralal Sankhwar @ Hiralal Mahato v. Chandradeo Mahato 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 19
Madhu Singh v. The State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 20
Pradeep Kumar Roy and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 21
The Court on its Own Motion v. Mahesh Tewari 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 22
Jharkhand Human Rights Conference v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 23
Manoj Tandon v. The State of Jharkhand 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 24
The Management of Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd. v. Sumitra Devi w/o Late C.K. Singh and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 25
Kundan Kumar v. National Investigation Agency 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 26
Amar Yasar v. State of Jharkhand 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 27
State of Jharkhand v. Sanjay Yadav & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 28
Pramod Kumar and Ors. v. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 29
Parimal Kumar Mahato & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 30
Pramod Kumar and Ors. v. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 31
Onkar Vishwakarma v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 32
State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Bikaram Mandal & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 33
Onkar Vishwakarma v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 34
Onkar Vishwakarma v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 35
State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Nandu Ram 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 36
M/s G.S. Enterprises v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 37
Nageshwar Acharya and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 38
Manoj Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 39
Manoj Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 40
Manoj Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 41
Hemant Kumar Shikarwar v. State of Jharkhand 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 42
Md. Mumtaz Ansari v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 43
Md. Mumtaz Ansari v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 44
Richa Priya v. Jharkhand State Bar Council 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 45
Court on its Own Motion v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 46
Court on its Own Motion v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 47
Court on its Own Motion v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 48
Court on its Own Motion v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 49
Court on its Own Motion v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 50
Vaishnavi v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 51
Rahul Kumar v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 52
Abhay Kumar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 53
Ranjeet Kumar Himanshu v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 54
Lakhan Kumar Mandal v. Foolmati Devi 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 55
Judgements and Orders
Case Title: Pali Hill Breweries Private Limited v. State of Jharkhand and Others (along with connected matters)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC(JHA)1 / 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 1
The Jharkhand High Court on Monday struck down a proviso introduced by a state amendment to the Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948 that allowed electricity duty to be levied as a percentage of consumers' “net charges”. The court held that the legislature had delegated its taxing power to the executive without laying down any policy guidance.
It further held that empowering the state government to fix electricity duty on a value-based formula, without prescribing standards or limits, amounted to excessive delegation of legislative power and conferred unfettered discretion on the executive.
Case Title: State of Jharkhand v. Indar Oraon
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 2
The Jharkhand High Court recently commuted the death sentence of an accused convicted of the rape and murder of a five-year-old girl to life imprisonment, holding that the possibility of reform and rehabilitation of the accused could not be ruled out.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai was hearing a matter in which the accused, Indar Oraon, had been found guilty and convicted for offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. He had been sentenced to death under Section 302 IPC and to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Case Title: Shivnarayan Yadav v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 3
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the failure to comply with the terms of a compromise or a promise to make payment is not, by itself, a ground to cancel bail once granted.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary was hearing a matter in which the petitioner sought to quash an order passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, whereby the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner had been cancelled.
Case Title: Vinay Kumar Choubey v. State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 4
The Jharkhand High Court on Tuesday (January 6) rejected the bail application filed by former Hazaribagh Deputy Commissioner (DC) and suspended IAS officer Vinay Kumar Choubey booked by the Anti Corruption Bureau an alleged land scam case.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a regular bail application filed by the petitioner, who was arraigned as an accused in an FIR registered under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 1988.
Case Title: Debleena Dutta v. Suman Kumar Ruj
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 5
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that unauthorised access to a spouse's intimate photographs, coupled with threats to circulate them on social media and acts of physical and sexual violence, constitutes cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court observed that such conduct amounted to “character assassination” of the wife by her own husband.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai was hearing a first appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act against a judgment of the Family Court dismissing the appellant-wife's suit seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Accepting Terminal Benefits Under EPF Forfeits State Pension Rights: Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: State of Bihar vs. Savitri Devi & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 6
A Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar held that an employee who voluntarily switches to the EPF scheme, accepts all EPF/terminal benefits, and remains silent for years is estopped from later claiming pension from the State.
Concealing Age, Murder Conviction Before Marriage Amounts To Mental Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: Ranthi Kumari Devi v. Suresh Kumar Sahu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 7
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a person concealing material facts such as their age and conviction for life imprisonment in a murder case before solemnisation of marriage amounts to mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, warranting dissolution of marriage.
The Court observed that such concealment, in this case by the wife, breaks the thread of trust between spouses, causing mental agony to the husband to an extent that it becomes nearly impossible for the parties to live together.
Case Title: Dhanbad Institute of Technology v. State of Jharkhand & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 8
The Jharkhand High Court has ordered a CBI investigation into the role of the Jharkhand University of Technology (JUT) and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) in a matter concerning technical students, observing that the case prima facie reflects corrupt practices by State authorities and has placed students' futures in jeopardy.
Justice Rajesh Kumar passed the order while hearing a writ petition filed by Dhanbad Institute of Technology, Dhanbad.
Case Title: Chandramuni Urain v. Director General of Police, Jharkhand and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 9
The Jharkhand High Court has directed the Home Department to formulate guidelines to deal with persons entering Jharkhand from outside, particularly to ensure their proper identification and to require that permission be sought from the concerned police station.
A Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai passed this direction while hearing a Habeas Corpus petition filed by a mother seeking the production of her missing daughter.
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Srivastav v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 10
The Jharkhand High Court has rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by a man accused of creating fake email and social media accounts to circulate defamatory and obscene content of a woman with whom he was allegedly in a consensual extra-marital relationship.
The Court observed that even if a relationship exists, it cannot be termed as a "friendship simpliciter" if one party exploits the other, holding that the petitioner had no authority to compromise the dignity and privacy of the informant.
Case Title: Priyanka Sahi v. Sidharth Rao
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 11
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the non-disclosure of a prior live-in relationship before marriage constitutes fraud as to a material fact under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Court emphasised that while Hindu marriage is a sacrament and not a contract, the concealment of such a relationship to obtain consent renders the marriage voidable and liable to be annulled by a decree of nullity.
Case Title: Jitendra Azad v. Meena Gupta
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 12
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the orthodox concept of a wife and the expectation that she must subordinate her life and career to the wishes of her husband has undergone a "revolutionary change", and that a married woman has a right to stand financially on her own feet and oblige society as a professional woman.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai made these observations while dismissing a first appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act filed by the husband against the dismissal of his petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Jha v. State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 13
The Jharkhand High Court has refused to modify its earlier order directing the demolition of illegal constructions in Jamshedpur. The Court held that the Supreme Court's decision In Re: Directions in Matter of Demolition of Structures, does not assist the applicants, as that judgment was rendered in the context of "bulldozer justice" and not in cases involving illegal constructions raised in disregard of the law and town planning norms.
A Division Bench of Justice MS Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing an application seeking modification of the High Court's order dated 14 January 2026, by which the Jharkhand Notified Area Committee (JNAC), Jamshedpur, was directed to demolish illegal structures raised by private respondents within one month.
Case Title: Safikul Sheikh and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 14
The Jharkhand High Court has directed the police and district administration of Sahibganj District to ensure protection of the constitutional and statutory rights of the Pahariya community, after taking serious note of allegations of social boycott, denial of essential services, and obstruction of religious celebration.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Prasad was hearing a criminal appeal filed by three appellants seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest in connection with Barharwa P.S. Case No. 79 of 2025, registered under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2) and 109(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(x), 3(1)(y), 3(1)(za) and 3(1)(zc) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Case Title: Naveen Kedia v. State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 15
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a person who has been granted interim bail cannot be treated as being in “custody” for the purposes of seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), unless the accused is actually in judicial custody or has surrendered before the Court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a regular bail application filed by the petitioner in connection with ACB Case No. 09 of 2025. The present application seeking regular bail was filed in connection with FIR dated 20 May 2025, registered for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 107 and 109 of the IPC (corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), as well as under Sections 7(c), 12 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Case Title: The Federation of Jharkhand Chamber of Commerce and Industries v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 16
The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that the Terminal Market Yard premises at Pandra, Ranchi, shall not be used for any election-related purposes, and warned that officers would be held responsible in the event of any breach of the Court's directions.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing a public interest litigation raising repeated disruption of business activities at the market yard due to its use for storing Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), setting up counting centres and other election-related activities.
Case Title: Arbind Sharan v. Bihar College Service Commission and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 17
The Jharkhand High Court has declined to interfere with the appointments of three lecturers made more than two decades ago, holding that it would be unjust to unsettle appointments that have remained in place for nearly 25 years, particularly when one possible and plausible view had already been acted upon by the competent authorities.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a writ petition challenging the appointment of three persons and seeking quashing of the recommendation of the Bihar College Service Commission, Patna, issued by letter dated 14 February 2000, on the ground that the same was contrary to the reservation policy.
Case Title: Chetna Kumar v. Dr. Prasoon Kumar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 18
The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC are summary in nature and are intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It also held that a wife is legally entitled to maintenance enabling her to live with dignity and in a manner similar to the standard of living she would have enjoyed in her matrimonial home. However, in the facts of the present case, the Court declined to enhance the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing cross-appeals filed by both the husband and the wife against an order of the Family Court, Ranchi, granting a consolidated maintenance of ₹24,000 per month to the wife.
Case Title: Hiralal Sankhwar @ Hiralal Mahato v. Chandradeo Mahato
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 19
On 3 February 2026, the Jharkhand High Court upheld the election of Chandradeo Mahato from the Sindri Assembly Constituency, holding that every discrepancy in an election campaign cannot, by itself, be treated as a 'corrupt practice' unless it is shown to be reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of other contesting candidates by misleading voters.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary was hearing an election petition filed under Sections 80 and 81 read with Section 100(1)(a), (b) and (d)(i) & (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of the returned candidate from the 38, Sindri Assembly Constituency in the October–November 2024 Jharkhand Assembly elections.
Case Title: Madhu Singh v. The State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 20
The Jharkhand High Court has modified the bail conditions imposed on the wife of former Jharkhand MLA and Minister Kamlesh Kumar Singh, permitting her to travel to the United States of America or the United Kingdom for treatment of her advanced liver disease.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a petition seeking modification of the order dated 13 May 2014 passed in B.A. No. 3581 of 2014, insofar as it required the petitioner to deposit her passport and restricted her travel abroad.
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Roy and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 21
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a formal application under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not mandatory, if the workmen have marked copies of their representations and grievances addressed to the employer to the Conciliation Officer, thereby bringing the dispute to the notice of the labour authorities.
A Single Judge Bench of Deepak Roshan was hearing writ petitions challenging the orders of the Labour Court, Deoghar, which had dismissed the workmen's claims solely on the ground that no formal application had been submitted before the Conciliation Officer under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Case Title: The Court on its Own Motion v. Mahesh Tewari
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 22
On 16 February 2026, the Jharkhand High Court dropped suo motu contempt proceedings against Advocate Mahesh Tewari after accepting his unconditional apology for statements made in open court which were captured in a video clip that later went viral on social media platforms.
A Five-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ananda Sen, and Rajesh Shankar was hearing the matter. The contempt proceedings arose out of an incident dated 16 October 2025 in Court Room No. 24 presided over by Justice Rajesh Kumar, where certain statements were made by the contemnor.
Case Title: Jharkhand Human Rights Conference v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 23
The Jharkhand High Court has issued a slew of directions in a public interest litigation concerning bio-medical-waste, emphasising the need for strict enforcement of the statutory framework governing handling and disposal of biomedical waste in the State.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing the PIL filed by the Jharkhand Human Rights Conference, a social welfare organisation, seeking effective implementation of the legal regime governing biomedical waste. The petition highlighted deficiencies in compliance by healthcare institutions and sought appropriate directions to ensure proper management, handling, and disposal of biomedical waste across the State.
Case Title: Manoj Tandon v. The State of Jharkhand.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 24
The Jharkhand High Court has held that seeking adjournment on the ground of filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, particularly when urgent mentioning was not allowed, reflects lack of bona fides and amounts to non-compliance with judicial orders.
Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed that the State's conduct in seeking adjournment on such grounds showed “bad faith,” especially in light of prior specific directions for compliance.
Case Title: The Management of Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd. v. Sumitra Devi w/o late C.K. Singh and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 25
The Jharkhand High Court has held that even where a domestic enquiry is found to be fair and proper, the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is not barred from examining whether the punishment imposed is disproportionate, and may mould the relief under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Deepak Roshan was hearing a writ petition filed by the management seeking to quash a Labour Court award dated 15.01.2008 in Reference Case No. 14 of 1988, which had set aside the discharge of the respondent-workman and directed reinstatement with 40% back wages and consequential benefits, further holding that he would be deemed to be in continuous service.
Case Title: Kundan Kumar v. National Investigation Agency.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 26
The Jharkhand High Court recently refused to grant bail to an accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, observing that mere delay in trial or prolonged custody cannot by itself be a ground for granting bail.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary was hearing an appeal filed under Section 21(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, challenging the order dated 20 September 2025 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi. By the impugned order, the trial court had rejected the appellant's bail application in Special (NIA) Case No. 01 of 2021 (RC Case No. 01/2021/NIA/RNC) arising out of Balumath P.S. Case No. 234 of 2020.
Case Title: Amar Yasar v State of Jharkhand.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 27
The Jharkhand High Court has held that criminal appeals filed beyond the outer limit of 90 days prescribed under Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 are not maintainable, observing that courts cannot condone delay beyond the maximum statutory period fixed by the special statute. The Court clarified that the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be invoked to extend the limitation period beyond the statutory cap under the NIA Act.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan was dealing with a preliminary objection raised by the Registry regarding the maintainability of a criminal appeal that had been filed after expiry of the maximum statutory period of 90 days under Section 21(5) of the NIA Act.
Case Title: State of Jharkhand v. Sanjay Yadav & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 28
The Jharkhand High Court has acquitted two accused persons in a multiple murder case, setting aside their conviction and death sentence, holding that where eyewitness testimony is riddled with “incoherent, inconsistent exaggerations and contradictions,” it would be unsafe to sustain conviction. The Court emphasised that when identification of the accused and their participation in the crime remains uncertain, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused.
A Division Bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan was hearing a death reference along with a criminal appeal arising from conviction under Sections 147, 148, 458/149 and 302/149 IPC, where the appellants had been sentenced to death along with other terms of imprisonment.
Case Title: Pramod Kumar and Ors v. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 29
The Jharkhand High Court has held that failure to consider extension of tenure of members of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums (CGRFs) in accordance with statutory regulations, and issuing fresh recruitment advertisements without reasons, undermines the independence and impartiality of such bodies.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ananda Sen was hearing a writ petition seeking quashing of Advertisement No. 03/2025 dated 07.08.2025 issued by Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (JBVNL), whereby applications were invited for posts already held by the petitioners, who were serving as Second/Technical Members in CGRFs at Ranchi and Chaibasa.
Case Title: Parimal Kumar Mahato & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 30
The Jharkhand High Court set aside the orders allowing restoration of land under the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, holding that (i) Section 46 is inapplicable to transfers made prior to its introduction in 1947, (ii) a restoration application filed after 45 years is barred under Section 71, and (iii) title established through a registered patta, civil court decree, and final record-of-rights cannot be disturbed in belated proceedings.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the order dated 22.11.1994 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum in S.A.R Appeal No.28 of 1986-87, which affirmed the order dated 06.06.1986 of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector allowing a restoration application under Section 71 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act.
Case Title: Pramod Kumar and Ors v. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 31
A Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar held that the pension of an employee cannot be withheld based on a single instance of irregularity, it requires that employee committed grave misconduct and his entire service was thoroughly unsatisfactory.
The employee (Respondent) joined the Water Resources Department as a Junior Engineer in 1979. After the bifurcation of the State, his service was allocated to the Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand. He was transferred to the Minor Irrigation Division. He joined as a Junior Engineer at the Jaridih Sub-division.
Case Title: Onkar Vishwakarma v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 32
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the absence of functional burn care facilities across the State renders the right to health under Article 21 “illusory”, issuing comprehensive directions to ensure establishment and operationalisation of burn units in all district hospitals.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing a public interest litigation concerning a kerosene fire incident in Hazaribagh which resulted in multiple deaths and severe burn injuries.
Public Advertisement Can't Replace Direct Communication To Employees For Promotion : Jharkhand HC
Case Title: State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Bikaram Mandal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 33
A Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar held that public advertisements cannot substitute direct communication with employees for departmental requirements, and denying promotion to eligible employees without proper notice is arbitrary. It was further held that affected employees are entitled to retrospective promotion from the date when juniors have been promoted.
The employees were Junior Engineers working in the Road Construction Department of the Government of Jharkhand. They approached the Single Judge seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). They were fully eligible and possessed the necessary qualifications, but their juniors were promoted over them.
Case Title: Onkar Vishwakarma v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 34
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the right to health under Article 21 is a positive constitutional mandate requiring the State to provide specialised, time-sensitive medical infrastructure, particularly in cases such as burn injuries where immediacy of care is critical. The Court observed that the absence of functional burn care facilities renders the constitutional guarantee of life with dignity illusory.
A division bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing a public interest litigation arising from a kerosene fire incident in Hazaribagh, which resulted in multiple deaths and severe burn injuries. The petitioner contended that victims admitted to Sadar Hospital were not provided adequate treatment due to a lack of specialised burn units, and that essential medicines were not readily available, forcing families to procure them externally. It was further pointed out that several victims, including women and minors, suffered grievous injuries and permanent disfigurement, exposing systemic deficiencies in emergency healthcare infrastructure.
Bihar State Financial Corporation Can Fix Employee Pay Without State Approval: Jharkhand HC
Case Title: Onkar Vishwakarma v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 35
A Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar held that under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, a State Financial Corporation has power to determine its employees' pay and service conditions without needing prior approval from the State Government.
The employees were working with the Bihar State Financial Corporation (BSFC). The Finance Department of the Government of Bihar issued a resolution in January 2010 to implement the 6th Pay Revision Commission (PRC) for its state employees effective from 1st January 2006.
Case Title: State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Nandu Ram.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 36
A Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Deepak Roshan held that unauthorised absence from duty must be proven to be willful to warrant dismissal, and punishment is disproportionate if the absence is due to compelling circumstances like medical illness.
The respondent (employee) was appointed as an Assistant Teacher. After serving for three years, he fell seriously ill. Then he proceeded on leave for a proper medical check-up. The doctor informed him that he was suffering from acute depression. He was advised to take proper treatment. Therefore, the employee sent an application for extension of leave through registered post to the District Superintendent of Education as well as to the Principal of the school where he was posted.
Case Title: M/s. G.S. Enterprises vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors..
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 37
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the State cannot exercise unfettered discretion in tender matters or deviate from conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender without assigning reasons. The Court observed that even where discretion exists, it must be exercised judiciously with due application of mind and cannot justify an unreasoned departure from prescribed tender conditions.
A division bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing a writ petition filed seeking a direction to accept its bid for the supply of Paneer and khowa-making units. The petitioner had participated in the tender process and, after being declared technically qualified, matched the L1 rate quoted by respondent No.3 in terms of Clauses 5.8 and 5.9 of the NIT. The petitioner relied on communications and minutes of the Tender Evaluation Committee indicating that such clauses were to be complied with and that its bid had been accepted during financial evaluation. However, despite this, the authorities later issued an email dated 10.10.2025 rejecting the petitioner's bid without assigning reasons.
Case Title: Nageshwar Acharya and Anr v. State of Jharkhand and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 38
The Jharkhand High Court has held that industries cannot disproportionately use public roads for their commercial operations at the cost of ordinary commuters, directing strict enforcement of statutory parking norms and development of adequate trauma care facilities near a steel plant.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing a public interest litigation concerning lack of parking facilities and road safety issues around the Chaliyama Steel Plant (CSP) at Rajnagar in Saraikela-Kharsawan district.
Case Title: Manoj Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 39
The Jharkhand High Court has held that there is no justification for the adjudicating mechanism under the Information Technology Act, 2000 to remain non-functional despite statutory provisions and notifications being in place, directing the State to operationalise the system forthwith.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing a Public Interest Litigation seeking implementation of the adjudicatory framework under Section 46 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Case Title: Manoj Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 40
A Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan held that a suspended employee reinstated without full exoneration or a finding that the suspension was wholly unjustified is not entitled to difference between full pay and subsistence allowance for the suspension period. Further, the employee would only be entitled to such proportion of pay and allowances as determined by the competent authority.
The appellant was appointed as Assistant Operator (Electrical) in the Damodar Valley Corporation in the year 1995. He was married on 11th July 2000. Later, a criminal case was instituted against him due to a matrimonial dispute. Therefore, the employee was placed under suspension.
Case Title: Manoj Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 41
The Jharkhand High Court has held that candidates seeking reservation must strictly comply with the conditions stipulated in recruitment advertisements, including submission of caste certificates in the prescribed format within the cut-off date, and that mere belonging to a reserved category does not entitle a candidate to claim such benefit.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing a batch of appeals challenging the common judgment dated 20.12.2019 passed by a learned Single Judge, whereby writ petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed and the decision of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) and Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) treating their candidature under the general category was upheld.
Case Title: Hemant Kumar Shikarwar v. State of Jharkhand.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 42
The Jharkhand High Court has held that illegal mining activities and operation of non-compliant stone crusher units in the Ichak region of Hazaribagh stand established, observing that authorities can no longer plead “institutional unpreparedness” to justify inaction against large-scale environmental degradation.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing a public interest litigation concerning rampant illegal stone mining and operation of crusher units around the Siwane River in the Ichak region of Hazaribagh district.
Case Title: Md. Mumtaz Ansari v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 43
The Jharkhand High Court has held that inquiries into custodial deaths must mandatorily be conducted by Judicial Magistrates under Section 176(1-A) CrPC or Section 196(2) BNSS, and that inquiries by Executive Magistrates cannot operate as a substitute for such judicial inquiry.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing a PIL seeking directions for judicial inquiry in every case of death, disappearance, or rape in police or judicial custody.
Case Title: Md. Mumtaz Ansari v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 44
The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the acquittal of two accused persons in a cheque dishonour case, holding that a “friendly transaction” between parties does not automatically constitute a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajesh Kumar was hearing an acquittal appeal filed by the complainant challenging the judgment dated 28.07.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint C-1 Case No. 807 of 2007.
Case Title: Richa Priya v. Jharkhand State Bar Council.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 45
The Jharkhand High Court has directed the Jharkhand State Bar Council to issue an enrolment certificate to a law graduate who was denied enrolment after joining as a Law Researcher/Research Associate in the High Court, while clarifying that her licence would remain suspended during the period of such engagement.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ananda Sen was hearing a writ petition filed by Richa Priya seeking a direction to the Bar Council to enrol her as an advocate from the date on which other applicants who had applied along with her were granted enrolment certificates.
Case Title: Court on its Own Motion v/s State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 46
The Jharkhand High Court issued a slew of directions with respect to treatment of rape survivors as well as various issues concerning the handling of sexual assault cases including free education for children of rape survivors till Class XII and providing scholarships to meritorious students who get selected in premier government institutes like IITs, NITs, AIIMs or IIMs etc.
The court in its comprehensive directions have also among others, directed the State to ensure that two-finger test is not conducted on sexual assault survivors during medical examination, noting that is already prohibited by the Supreme Court. The court has also directed the State's DGP to constitute a Special Task Force to quarterly monitor sexual offence cases and ensure no unnecessary adjournment is taken during the trial. Further investigation of rape cases is to be completed in two months.
Case Title: Court on its Own Motion v/s State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 47
The Jharkhand High Court has upheld an order passed by the Lokayukta in proceedings concerning allegations against the Lokayukta's own brother, holding that the doctrine of necessity would apply where the office of the Lokayukta is a single-member institution and the core adjudicatory functions of the office are not delegable under the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of an order dated 30.04.2012 passed by the Lokayukta, Jharkhand. The petitioner had further sought a declaration that the Lokayukta had violated the oath of office under Section 3(2) read with Schedule I of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 by deciding a complaint concerning respondent no.3, who was allegedly his own brother, instead of delegating the matter under Section 19 of the Act.
Case Title: Court on its Own Motion v/s State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 48
The Jharkhand High Court has disposed of a PIL seeking financial assistance and medical insurance coverage for practising advocates in the State after recording the Jharkhand Government's assurance that annual premiums for registered advocates would be paid by the State on a continuing basis.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by a practising advocate in Jharkhand seeking directions for financial aid and health insurance coverage for advocates and their dependent family members.
Case Title: Court on its Own Motion v/s State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 49
The Jharkhand High Court has directed Circle Officers across the State to verify and digitally authenticate online land records after observing repeated discrepancies between physical land registers and entries reflected on the State's online portal.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ananda Sen was hearing a writ petition filed by one Ram Prakash Bhagat @ Ram Prakash Oraon seeking correction of land records relating to lands situated in village Baridih, District Lohardaga.
Case Title: Court on its Own Motion v/s State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 50
The Jharkhand High Court has held that an ex parte decree cannot be set aside under Order IX Rule 13 CPC merely on allegations of irregularity in service of summons where the defendants had knowledge of the proceedings and sufficient opportunity to appear before the Court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a Second Appeal filed against the judgment dated 23.03.2026 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi in Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2024 affirming an ex parte decree passed in Original Suit No. 576 of 2023.
Case Title: Vaishnavi v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 51
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a Public Interest Litigation concerning disability rights and recruitment processes is maintainable despite the general bar against entertaining PILs in service matters, observing that issues concerning persons with disabilities require “enhanced sensitivity.”
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar was considering whether a petition challenging a 2018 notification prescribing a format for disability certificates in recruitment processes ought to be entertained as a PIL. Counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) objected to the maintainability of the petition, contending that PILs are ordinarily not entertained in service matters or in challenges relating to vires of statutory provisions.
Case Title: Rahul Kumar v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 52
The Jharkhand High Court has observed that the State must consider revisiting the compensation payable to male acid attack victims under the Jharkhand Victim Compensation Scheme, 2016, noting the significant disparity between the compensation available to male victims and that available to female victims under the 2019 amendment scheme.
A Division Bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava made the observation while enhancing the compensation payable to an acid attack survivor from ₹3 lakh to ₹15 lakh.
Case Title: Abhay Kumar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 53
The Jharkhand High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an advocate accused of financial irregularities and forgery in the management of a school, in a case instituted by a fellow lawyer practising before the High Court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing an anticipatory bail application filed in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 314 of 2017, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 379 and 120B/34 IPC. The Court observed that the filing of a chargesheet is not by itself a ground to reject an application for anticipatory bail and that such pleas must be considered on their own merits.
Case Title: Ranjeet Kumar Himanshu v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 54
The Jharkhand High Court has ordered the reinstatement of a contractual peon who was dismissed after allegedly taking tea and biscuits from his office, holding that the punishment was grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The Court observed that the disciplinary proceedings also stood vitiated as the employee was served with a vague show-cause notice and his reply was rejected without assigning reasons.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing an appeal against a Single Judge's order dismissing the appellant's writ petition challenging the termination of his services as a peon in the office of the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Bokaro.
Case Title: Lakhan Kumar Mandal v. Foolmati Devi.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 55
The Jharkhand High Court has held that where a child attains majority during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings, the mother ceases to have the authority to consent to a DNA test on the child's behalf. The Court observed that an adult child, who is not a party to the proceedings, cannot be compelled to undergo a DNA test and no adverse inference can be drawn against the mother if the child refuses to undergo such examination.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary was hearing a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Principal Judge, Giridih, rejecting the husband's application seeking DNA testing of a child whom he alleged was born out of his wife's adulterous relationship.