Case Title: S v. A
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 130
The Jharkhand High Court has held that under Hanafi law, the mother has a preferential right to custody (Hizanat) of her female child until she attains puberty, subject to the welfare of the child being the paramount consideration. The Court further held that custody of a minor child cannot be adjudicated ex parte, as hearing both parties is necessary for determining the child's welfare.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad was hearing an appeal against an ex parte judgment passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-II, Ranchi directing the mother to hand over custody of her about four-year-old daughter to the father within a week.
'Absence Of Signs Of Resistance Not Ground To Disbelieve Rape Victim': Jharkhand High Court
Case Title : Mukesh Bilung and Ors v. State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 131
The Jharkhand HC has held that the absence of signs of struggle or resistance on the body of a rape victim cannot, by itself, be a ground to disbelieve her testimony, particularly where the victim was a minor and the medical evidence corroborates the occurrence.
A Division Bench of Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava heard the appeal filed by the appellants challenging their conviction under Section 376(D) of the IPC and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
Case Title : XXX v. State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 132
The Jharkhand High Court has held that bail to a juvenile in conflict with law is the rule under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and cannot be denied on a mere apprehension that the juvenile may come into contact with known criminals unless there is material supporting such a conclusion.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a criminal revision petition challenging the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board, Hazaribagh and the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Hazaribagh, refusing bail to the petitioner.
Case Title : Madhu Kora @ Madhu Koda v. Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 133
The Jharkhand HC has held that there need not be an “arithmetical correspondence” between the amount quantified in proceedings relating to the scheduled offence and the value of property alleged to constitute proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad was hearing a petition filed by former Jharkhand Chief Minister Madhu Koda under Section 482 CrPC, challenging the order of the Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi, which had declined to alter or modify the charges framed against him.
Case Title : Md. Wahid @ Md. Abdul Wahid v. State of Jharkhand and Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 134
The Jharkhand HC has held that a conviction under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained in the absence of the necessary ingredients of the offence, including the requisite intention or circumstances indicating an attempt to commit culpable homicide amounting to murder.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajesh Kumar was hearing an appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 15.06.2023 and order of sentence dated 22.06.2023 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO, Chatra, whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 341, 342, 323, 324 and 307 IPC, Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3/4 of the Witch Craft Prevention Act.
Case Title : Rekha Kumari @ Rekha v. Rakesh Kumar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 135
The Jharkhand HC has held that in a matrimonial dispute, the mere fact that a wife did not lodge a formal First Information Report cannot, by itself, be a ground to disbelieve her testimony regarding cruelty and assault by her husband.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad was hearing an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the dismissal of a divorce petition filed by the wife under Section 27(1)(b) and (d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Case Title : Court on its Own Motion v. Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 136
The Jharkhand HC has held that prolonged and unexplained delay in concluding preliminary inquiries into corruption allegations can infringe the right to speedy justice under Article 21, and issued time-bound directions to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and competent authorities for dealing with such inquiries.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad was hearing a suo motu Public Interest Litigation which originated from an order dated 10.05.2019 passed in an anticipatory bail matter. The Single Judge, while considering the matter, had raised the question whether an investigation into allegations of corruption against a public servant could be permitted to continue indefinitely for years in disregard of the directions of the Supreme Court. The Registry was thereafter directed to register a suo motu PIL.
Case Title : Ajay Kerketta v. State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 137
The Jharkhand HC has held that where an accused is convicted under both Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC for the same offence, Section 42 of the POCSO Act requires the Court to impose the greater punishment and does not permit separate sentences for both offences to run consecutively.
A Division Bench of Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava was hearing an appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 02.07.2015 and order of sentence dated 07.07.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Simdega in Special (POCSO) Case No. 01/2014.
Case Title : A v. M
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 138
The Jharkhand HC has held that the alleged non-appearance of a party in a pending guardianship proceeding cannot be made a ground for seeking clarification or modification of an earlier order under Section 151 CPC, as it is for the concerned trial court to deal with the non-appearance in accordance with law.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad was hearing an application filed by the respondent-husband seeking clarification and modification of the Court's earlier order dated 15.05.2026, whereby interim custody of the minor daughter had been handed over to the appellant-mother with a direction for expeditious disposal of the pending guardianship proceeding.
Case Title : Sushil Kumar Biswas v. State of Jharkhand and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 139
The Jharkhand HC has held that a preliminary order as contemplated under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a sine qua non for proceedings seeking removal of a public nuisance, and that where the person against whom such order is made appears and shows cause, the Magistrate must provide an opportunity to adduce evidence in accordance with Section 138 CrPC.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary was hearing a petition filed by Sushil Kumar Biswas challenging the order dated 04.09.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Deoghar, dismissing his criminal revision, as well as the order dated 13.05.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Madhupur under Section 133 CrPC.
Case Title : Md. Najmul Hawaldar @ Nazmul Hawaldar v. State of Jharkhand and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 140
The Jharkhand HC has questioned the continued detention of a Bangladeshi national who had already completed his sentence under the Foreigners Act, observing that keeping him in jail in the name of completing the repatriation procedure would burden the State, society and the entire country.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Prasad was hearing an appeal filed by Md. Najmul Hawaldar @ Nazmul Hawaldar through the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee, challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946
Case Title : Coal Employees Welfare Association & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 141
The Jharkhand HC has directed the CBI to register an FIR and investigate the investment of Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation (CMPFO) funds in Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL), which resulted in a loss of approximately Rs. 727.67 crores.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad was hearing a PIL concerning the alleged loss suffered by CMPFO on account of its investment in DHFL.
Case Title : Hemento Singh @ Hemant Singh v. State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 142
The Jharkhand HC has upheld the conviction of the appellants for gang rape, finding the prosecutrix to be an “absolutely reliable and trustworthy” witness. The Court held that the three-day delay in lodging the FIR, her inability to identify the accused by name and the non-detection of sperm after 72 hours did not discredit her testimony, particularly as her version was corroborated by the injuries found on her body.
A Division Bench of Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava was hearing appeals against the judgment of conviction dated 23.08.2018 and order of sentence dated 29.08.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-X-cum-FTC, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum. The appellants had been sentenced to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.40,000/- each.
Case Title : Lalgarh Welfare Society v. State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 143
The Jharkhand HC has held that courts have limited scope to interfere with technical and policy decisions of railway authorities, declining a PIL seeking construction of a Road Over Bridge (ROB) or manned level crossing between Lalgarh Bihar and Rajhura, near Panjarikala village.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad was hearing the PIL seeking a direction to the authorities to commence and complete construction of a manned level crossing or ROB at the existing railway line.
Case Title : Pankaj Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 144
The Jharkhand HC has directed the police to complete investigations into bridge collapse cases pending since 2009 within three months, observing that the prolonged pendency of criminal investigations affects the right to speedy investigation under Article 21. At the same time, the Court refused to interfere with the posting of the Engineer-in-Chief of the Rural Development Department, holding that such administrative decisions ordinarily fall within the State's domain.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad was hearing a PIL seeking an inquiry into the reasons for the collapse of several bridges in Jharkhand and action against officials allegedly responsible.
Case Title : Tata AIG v. Prabha Kumari and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 145
The Jharkhand HC has held that some limited estimation of additional income from overtime can be made while calculating motor accident compensation, even where the deceased's salary certificate does not record any overtime payment, taking into account the evidence of extra work and the number of dependants left behind.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak was hearing an appeal filed by Tata AIG against the judgment and award dated 28.01.2025 passed by the District Judge-VII, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in M.A.C.C. Case No. 173 of 2022. The deceased's salary certificate showed a last drawn salary of Rs.11,684 per month, which the Tribunal rounded off to Rs.11,700. The Tribunal, however, added another Rs.5,000 per month towards overtime while calculating his income.
Case Title : Anil Sharma v. State of Jharkhand and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 146
The Jharkhand HC has held that the State Sentence Review Board cannot reject a convict's plea for premature release through a mechanical order without considering the relevant reports concerning his conduct, age, propensity to commit crime and prospects of rehabilitation.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay was hearing a writ petition filed by a life convict challenging Notification No. 1262 dated 25.03.2026 issued by the State Sentence Review Board, by which his claim for premature release had been rejected. At the time of consideration, the petitioner had completed 26 years of actual custody and 29 years including remission.
Case Title : SK v. RK
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 147
The Jharkhand HC has held that a husband insisting that his wife accept his extramarital relationship and live with the woman with whom he was having an affair as a “younger sister” amounts to mental cruelty of the gravest kind. The Court allowed the wife's appeal against the dismissal of her divorce petition and dissolved the marriage on the ground of cruelty.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava observed that marriage is founded on mutual trust and respect, and that an extramarital relationship which destroys this trust can make it impossible for the spouses to continue living together.
Case Title : S v. A
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 148
The Jharkhand HC has held that a court can grant interim maintenance suo motu under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, even where the financially dependent spouse has not filed a formal application seeking such relief. The Court observed that procedural technicalities cannot defeat the statutory right to maintenance, particularly where a spouse lacks the means to contest matrimonial proceedings.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad directed a husband to pay Rs.15,000 per month to his wife during the pendency of his divorce appeal, despite the wife having filed no application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Case Title : CKv. VS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 149
The Jharkhand HC has held that although a decree of divorce passed by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is ordinarily not appealable, an appeal can be maintained where the genuineness of consent is disputed or mandatory statutory safeguards have not been followed. The Court set aside a mutual consent divorce decree after finding that the Family Court had failed to adequately examine a dispute concerning the date of marriage and the voluntariness of the wife's consent.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad observed that the Family Court must verify the foundational facts and genuineness of consent before dissolving a marriage, and that a settlement between the parties cannot substitute compliance with statutory requirements.
Case Title : Baijanti Gope and Ors v. Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 150
The Jharkhand HC has held that provisions governing compensation for railway accidents must be interpreted liberally, observing that a restrictive interpretation of the Railways Act would deprive poor and middle-class victims of compensation, particularly when crores of people depend on trains because they cannot afford travelling by air or private vehicles. The Court awarded Rs.8 lakh in compensation to the family of a man who died after falling from a crowded train, despite his railway ticket not being recovered from his body.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi set aside the Railway Claims Tribunal's order rejecting the compensation claim, holding that the Tribunal had adopted a hyper-technical approach despite sufficient evidence establishing that the deceased was a bona fide passenger who died in an untoward incident.
Case Title : Chamra Oraon v. State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 151
The Jharkhand HC has held that an accused must be questioned under Section 313 CrPC in a language he understands, and that improper recording of his statement, causing prejudice to his right to explain incriminating circumstances, can itself be a ground for acquittal. The Court set aside the murder conviction and life sentence of an illiterate man whose statement had been recorded entirely in English without any indication that the questions and answers were explained to him in his mother tongue.
A Division Bench of Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava observed that Section 313 CrPC embodies the principle of audi alteram partem, ensuring that no person is condemned without an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against him.
Case Title : Goma Gope @ Goma v. State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Jha) 152
The Jharkhand HC has held that a single knife blow inflicted during a sudden argument, in the heat of passion and without premeditation, can fall within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, making the offence culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court converted the murder conviction of an 88-year-old father who fatally stabbed his son following an argument over his consumption of alcohol to an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC.
A Division Bench of Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava observed that the assault occurred on the spur of the moment when the deceased questioned his father for consuming hariya, a locally brewed alcoholic drink. Considering the circumstances and the appellant's advanced age, the Court reduced his sentence to the period already undergone.