Jharkhand High Court
Akhtari Khatun vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 6 February, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) (DB) (HB) No. 75 of 2026
----
Akhtari Khatun... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi, Advocate Ms. Shipra Sonam, Advocate Mr. Bipin Bihari, Advocate Mr. Priyanshu Nilesh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, GP I Mr. Navneet Toppo, AC to GP I Mr. Saurav Mahto, AC to GP I
--------
th Order No. 03: Dated 6 February, 2026
1. The instant writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for the following relief(s):
"a. For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of habeas corpus giving direction upon the respondents to produce the corpus (son of the petitioner namely Md. Suhail Akhtar) before the Hon'ble Court as the son of the petitioner has been detained by the Police Officials since 27.01.2026 without giving any reasons.
b. For issuance of an appropriate
writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) commanding upon the
respondents to conduct enquiry and punish the erring police officials for illegally detain the son of the petitioner in lockup of the police station for more than 24 hours without assigning any reason."
-1-
2. The matter was notified on 5th February, 2026, on urgent mention memo being moved by learned counsel for the petitioner and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel was called upon, who sought for adjournment for a day to come out with instruction. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned for today. For ready reference, order dated 05.02.2026 is quoted as under:
"1. The case has been mentioned for early hearing today at 10:30 A.M. on the ground that the writ petitioner has illegally been detained by the police officials from 27.01.2026.
2. This Court, considering the nature of the prayer as has been referred at the time of mentioning based upon the pleadings has directed the office to notify this case for hearing at 02:15 P.M. today. The case has been notified and due communication has also been made to the learned State Counsel.
3. The case has been heard.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that without any authority of law and even without instituting any F.I.R., the petitioner is in illegal custody of the police.
5. It has also been contended that the petitioner is the student of Class-X and he is to appear in the ongoing examination.
6. Learned State Counsel has appeared and has sought for adjournment for today by making prayer to come with the instruction tomorrow.
7. List this case tomorrow i.e. on 06th February, 2026 at 10:30 A.M. as a first case."
3. The matter has been taken up today.
-2-
4. Although, we have not called upon any officer, but, Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Barwar, SDPO, Tandwa [Dy.S.P]; Mr. Anil Uraon, Officer-in-charge, Tandwa Police Station [Inspector]; and Mr. Prashant Kumar Mishra, Officer-in-charge Lawalong Police Station are physically present before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after knowing institution of the case the son of the petitioner, who was lifted by the police, has been left out in his house today in the morning.
6. It has further been stated that however offer has been made on behalf of police officials to the maternal uncle of the son of the writ petitioner to have the case compromised i.e., the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has submitted that the aforesaid facts will be brought on record by filing affidavit before the next date of hearing of the instant case.
7. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned AAG-II representing the State along with Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, learned GP I; Mr. Navneet Toppo, learned AC to GP I and Mr. Saurav Mahto, learned AC to GP I have appeared on behalf of respondents.
8. Certain queries were put forth to the police officials present in the Court regarding the taking away of the son of the writ petitioner after the midnight of 26.01.2026 i.e., on -3- 27.01.2026 from his residence, which is situated in Lawalong Police Station.
9. The SDPO, Tandwa and the Officer-in-Charge of the Lawalong Police Station have jointly stated that some technical input was received from the technical cell of the Police Headquarters at Chatra regarding complain of extortion and the IMEI number of the mobile phone was forwarded. The technical team of Chatra Police has ascertained that the said IMEI Number is being used by the son of the writ petitioner. Therefore, after having been contacted with Tandwa Police Station, the police personnel of the Lawalong Police Satiation rushed to the residence of the petitioner where his resides and was called for interrogation.
10. It is stated that the son of the petitioner was interrogated on 27.01.2026 and in the evening he was handed over to his near relative i.e. maternal uncle and again the son of the petitioner was lifted on 30.01.2026 and left out to his maternal uncle on 31.01.2026 in morning, after following the due procedure.
11. This Court, therefore, has posed a question that when on the basis of imputation and input of the technical team of Chatra District Police, the son of the writ petitioner was lifted from his house for interrogation then as to whether the same has been entered into the case diary, which is required to be -4- maintained in connection with the investigation of the concerned case or not.
12. Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Barwar, Tandwa [Dy.S.P] at present working as SDPO, Tandwa Police Station has very casually said before this Court that it will be recorded in the case diary. However, the Officer-in-Charge of the Tandwa Police Station has stated by showing an excuse what has been said by the SDPO, Tandwa Police Station.
13. We are conscious that the police have power for investigation, if any input is being find out by them but at the same time, it is important that investigation should be done strictly in terms of the law.
14. What has been stated by the police officials present in the Court regarding lifting of the son of the writ petitioner for interrogation, we are not making any remarks upon the same but the process ought to have been followed i.e., by making reference thereof in the case diary, if not followed.
15. The veracity of the aforesaid fact as to whether the reference of the interrogation of the son of the writ petitioner is in the case diary or not, we have requested learned AAG-II to get it verified from the Superintendent of Police, Chatra.
16. Learned AAG II, after seeking permission from this Court to interact with S.P., Chatra over phone has called upon the S.P., Chatra and has instructed the S.P., Chatra as -5- to whether the case diary pertaining to Tandwa Police Case No. 26 of 2026 is lying with his office or not.
17. The S.P., Chatra has stated over phone, which was put to microphone connected with speaker, and which was audible to all present in the Court, that he need 50-60 minutes time to call for the case diary. The matter therefore adjourned for few cases.
18. Again, the matter was taken up.
19. The learned AAG II has again made a call on the phone of S.P., Chatra by putting his phone on speaker, which was connected with Court's Mic, so that the voice of the S.P., Chatra be audible to all.
20. The S.P., Chatra, read out the entire case diary from the date of institution of FIR and has also read out the fact about the lifting of the son of the writ petitioner after midnight of 26.01.2026 i.e. on 27.01.2026 and thereafter handing over to the family members of the writ petitioner and again the son of the writ petitioner was lifted on 30.01.2026 for further interrogation.
21. This Court has posed a question as to whether the case diary has been maintained on day-to-day basis i.e., the day when the son of the writ petitioner was lifted or at least the following day i.e., on 27.01.2026, and subsequently on -6- 31.01.2026, the second time the son of the writ petitioner was called upon for interrogation.
22. The S.P., Chatra after reading out the case diary has stated that the case diary has been written on 31.01.2026.
23. This Court, after taking note of the aforesaid fact, as per the telephonic conversation and before passing the appropriate order, is of the view that case diary, which has been read out in open Court, is required to be looked into by this Court.
24. Accordingly, the State counsel is directed to produce the case diary which has been read out in the Court on the next date of hearing for perusal of this Court.
25. The Superintendent of Police, Chatra and all the officers including all the investigating officer of the present case will remain physically present on the next date of hearing.
26. List this case on 13th February, 2026 as a first case.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Later On: 6th February, 2026
27. Although we have concluded the proceeding in the pre- lunch Session. But when the Court has resumed its Court proceeding in the post-lunch Session, Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi, -7- learned Counsel has made a mention that 6-7 Police personnel has again rushed to the house of the writ petitioner and threatened the maternal uncle of the son of the writ petitioner not to go to Ranchi for filing affidavit.
28. The order which we have passed is in presence of those three police personnel present in the Court and as such this Court prima facie found that the information regarding filing of an affidavit, since, has been passed in their presence and none of the Police officials who are said to be there in the house of the writ petitioner, therefore, these three Police official may have communicated about the filing of the affidavit.
29. Further, Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Barwar, SDPO, Tandwa [Dy.S.P]; in course of interaction has also said the fact with arrogance that if the things have not been noted in the case diary, it will be noted down.
30. Therefore, this Court considering the seriousness of the issue has requested the Court Master to call Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G.-II.
31. Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G.-II has come to the Court and this Court requested him to ask again the S.P., Chatra to participate in the proceeding through the virtual mode.
32. Mr. Sumit Kumar Agarwal, S.P., Chatra has appeared through the virtual mode and when the Court has disclosed -8- the allegation, which has been made by petitioner in post- lunch session, he has stated that he will personally look into the matter.
33. This Court, therefore, hereby directs the S.P., Chatra to conduct an enquiry regarding the presence of the Police personnel as also the conduct of the Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Barwar, SDPO, Tandwa [Dy.S.P]; and other police officials regarding their involvement in the matter and submit a report on the next date of hearing.
34. The threat, if it has been given not to go to the High Court for filing affidavit amounts to interference with the Judicial administration.
35. However, the S.P., Chatra, since, has said that he will personally look into the matter and as such this Court is adjourning the matter for passing further necessary order on the next date of hearing.
36. List this case on 13.02.2026.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 6th February, 2026 Alankar/-
-9-