State's Attempt To Stall Compliance Of Orders By Citing Proposed SLP Before SC 'In Bad Faith': Jharkhand High Court Cautions Officers
Rushil Batra
2 March 2026 7:45 PM IST
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.
The Court was hearing a matter alleging wilful disobedience and non-compliance of orders directing release of the petitioner's vehicle bearing Registration No. JH01FW 0020, seized in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No. 51 of 2026. It was submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 21.02.2026 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class-XIII, Ranchi, for release of the vehicle had not been complied with despite a specific direction issued by the High Court on 26.02.2026 in the presence of the City Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, Paras Rana.
Taking serious note of the non-compliance, the Court directed the City S.P., Ranchi and the Officer-in-Charge of Doranda Police Station to appear personally before the Court at 11:30 AM. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, was also directed to appear through video conferencing at the same time.
When the matter was taken up at 11:30 AM, counsel for the State submitted that the order dated 26.02.2026 directing release of the vehicle would be challenged before the Supreme Court and was to be mentioned for urgent hearing at 1:00 PM. In view of this submission, the matter was adjourned to 2:15 PM.
However, when the matter was taken up again, the High Court noted that although the State had claimed that the Special Leave Petition would be mentioned for urgent hearing, the request for urgent mentioning had not been allowed. The Court recorded that “it appears that mentioning for urgent hearing has not been allowed.”
Taking exception to the State's conduct, the Court further observed that seeking adjournment on the ground that the Special Leave Petition had been filed before the ensuing court holidays could not justify non-compliance with its order, and reflected lack of bona fides. The Court noted:
“Seeking adjournment today only on the ground that a special leave petition has been filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order of release of vehicle, when the Court is to close for Holi holidays i.e. about 10 days, is apparently in bad faith to stall the release of the vehicle and is nothing but a ploy to circumvent the order passed by the trial court as well as by this court”
Eventually, upon the matter being called out again at 2:15 PM, counsel for the State, on instructions, submitted that the concerned officers had agreed to release the vehicle by 4:30 PM the same day. Recording the statement, the Court disposed of the petition.
Case Title: Manoj Tandon v. The State of Jharkhand.
Case Number: W.P. (Cr) (Filing) No. 4238 of 2026
Appearance: Ritu Kumar, Rajendra Krishna, Abhay Kr. Mishra, Siddharth Ranjan, Karamjit Singh Chhabra, Akansha Priya, Piyush Kr. Roy, Amrendra Datri, S.G. Raman, Punam Shrivastava and Ajay Kr. Singh appeared for the Petitioner. Sachin Kumar, Achyut Keshav and Deepankar appeared for the State. Kumar Vaibhav appeared for the Union of India. Prashant Pallav appeared for the CBI.