'Ensure State's Lawyers Appear' : Supreme Court Tells Jharkhand Home Secretary

The Home Secretary of Jharkhand, Ms Vandana Dadel, appeared online before the Supreme Court today in compliance with yesterday's order summoning her over repeated lapses by the State in appearing in matters where service of notice had been completed. The Court asked her to ensure that Jharkhand's legal representatives remain duly present in such cases. 

As for the main matter, the Court directed the State to challenge the anticipatory bail granted by the Jharkhand High Court to two murder accused, noting that the High Court had issued the order without examining the merits.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan briefly interacted with Ms Dalel today and requested her to ensure that the State's counsels appear whenever the notice is issued.

Justice Pardiwala asked: "What is the problem with the State? Why are you compelling us to pass such orders early in the morning? Did you read our last order of 13 November, ma'am? Why don't you bother to see that someone appears? Your assistance is required on behalf of the State".

Referring to another case where also the State had not appeared, Justice Pardiwala said : Three days before, we had to deal with a matter wherein a de facto complainant came in appeal before us saying that the High Court has enlarged three murder convicts on bail and that too, suspension of sentence. The State didn't bother to question those orders. Those were very cryptic orders. Nobody appeared on behalf of the State, and ultimately, we had to pass an order and remit the matter back. We need assistance, and a very able assistance.".

Justice Pardiwala told Ms Dalel: "Do you know the facts of those cases? One of the convicts was on parole, and while on parole, he committed murder, and the High Court released him on bail. How do you propose to maintain the rule of law in your State of Jharkhand? You need to pay due attention to this. You are holding a very important office. You are the Home Secretary, Home means the entire law and order you have to ensure in the State. You ensure that whoever is the lawyer for the State of Jharkhand, he appears in the Court when the notice is served."

Ms Dalel acknowledged that there is a "serious lapse" on the part of the State. She apologised and promised that such instances would not be repeated.

Today, Advocate Pragya Baghel appeared for the State of Jharkhand. On being asked why she didn't appear, Baghel submitted that the vakalatnama was not issued, and she also duly apologised. On the case details, she submitted that there are now six accused persons - three who were charge-sheeted and three who were added under Section 319 CrPC by the High Court after the police had filed a closure report against them. The trial has concluded for three of the accused, resulting in two convictions and one acquittal. Of the remaining three, two are on anticipatory bail, while the third is before the Supreme Court as the present petitioner seeking regular bail.

Justice Pardiwala questioned: "Why did you file a closure report against them? When the first information, the eyewitness to the incident, says these three accused persons opened fire, what was the other material collected by the IO to say that these have been falsely implicated?"

Baghel submitted that the chargesheet does not mention anything in this regard. Justice Pardiwala then questioned the Home Secretary and Baghel as to why the two accused persons were granted anticipatory bail by the High Court and why the State is yet to challenge that.

Justice Pardiwala told Ms Dalel: "Have you gone through the order of the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused persons of July 2025? We are in November 2025. What do you propose to do now?"

"We should have challenged it already, sir," Ms Dalel replied.

Baghel informed that the petitioner had not appeared before the Trial Court, and it had to issue a non-bailable warrant against him. It should be noted that this point was not informed to the Court yesterday. She also clarified that the State is going to challenge the anticipatory bail orders within 2 weeks. In response to this, the Court adjourned the matter for 2 weeks to hear all three matters together.

It ordered: "

"Pursuant to our order, the Home Secretary of the State of Jharkhand, Ms Dalel, has joined online. We had a brief interaction, and we brought to her notice that over a period of time, the State has exhibited a complete callousness insofar as matters before this Court are concerned. We also brought a few instances to her notice. Ms Dalel has taken notice of all that we brought to her notice. Insofar as the main matter is concerned, the petitioner prays for bail pending trial. Ms. Baghel appeared today on behalf of the State. We inquired with Ms Baghel as to in what circumstances the other two co-accused, similarly situated, namely Arshad and Shamsher, came to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. According to her, as far as Shamsher and MD Arshad are concerned, when they came to know they were arraigned as accused by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 319 CrPC, they prayed for anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest from the police. In such circumstances, the High Court passed an order..

The plain reading would indicate that the High Court directed Shamsher and Arshad to appear before the Trial Court and furnish bail. It seems like the High Court has not gone into the merits of the matter. So far as, Gudda is concerned, the Court went into the merits of the matter though fit not to grant bail keeping in mind the nature of the allegations. The State has now realised that it should have acted promptly to challenge the anticipatory bail orders passed by the High Court insofar as Shamsher and Arshad are concerned. The State is now contemplating moving this Court. We adjourn this matter for a period of two weeks, in which the State may prefer an appropriate petition if it intends to challenge the orders passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail. We shall hear all matters together in next date of hearing.

On the next date of hearing, we want both sides to provide a common compilation containing the deposition of the three eyewitnesses wherein they have implicated Guddu, Arshad and Shamsher, the postmortem report of the deceased, and the order passed by the Trial Court under Section 319 CrPC."

Case Details: MD IMRAN D.C. GUDDU Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND|SLP(Crl) No. 12110/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order