{"id":138081,"date":"2010-03-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010"},"modified":"2016-10-12T17:07:04","modified_gmt":"2016-10-12T11:37:04","slug":"sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sanjay Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 26 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n
Sanjay Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 26 March, 2010<\/div>\n
                W.P. (S) No. 140 of 2007 with W.P.(S) No. 218 of 2007\n                                                ---\n<\/pre>\n
               In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
                                                —<\/p>\n
\n            Prafulla Kumar Jha (WPS 140\/07)\n            Sanjay Kumar Singh (WPS 218\/07)                                           Petitioners\n                                                    Versus\n            1. The State of Jharkhand\n            2. Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi\n<\/pre>\n
            3. Dy. Inspector General, Kolhan Range, West Singbhum, Chaibasa\n<\/p>\n
            4. Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur\n<\/p>\n
            5. Additional Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur (WPS 140\/07)<\/p>\n
            1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department
\n               of Home, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi\n<\/p>\n
            2. D.I.G. Police, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Area at Chaibasa\n<\/p>\n
            3. Superintendent of Police, Singhbhum (East), Jamshedpur\n<\/p>\n
            4. Additional Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur\n<\/p>\n
            5. Police Inspector (Traffic)-cum-Conducting Officer,
\n               Singhbhum (East), Jamshedpur (WPS 218\/07)                       Respondents<\/p>\n
                                               —\n<\/p>\n
         For the Petitioners: Dr. (Mr.) S.N. Pathak and Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocates
\n         For the Respondents: Mr. D.K. Dubey, SC (Mines)\n<\/p>\n
                                                   —-\n<\/p>\n
                                      CAV JUDGMENT\n<\/p>\n
                                               —\n<\/p>\n
       Reserved on: 19.03.2010                            Pronounced on: 26 .03.2010\n                                              -----\n                                          PRESENT\n                            Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.G.R. Patnaik\n                                                ---\n<\/pre>\n
D.G.R. Patnaik, J: Both these writ applications based on identical facts and common grounds, are
\n       taken up together for disposal.\n<\/p>\n
       2.      Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
       3.      The petitioner Prafulla Kumar Jha in WPS No. 140 of 2007 has prayed for
\n       quashing the order dated 24.7.2006 (Annexure-7), passed by the Disciplinary Authority
\n       whereby, the petitioner was terminated from service. Further prayer has also been made
\n       for quashing the order dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure-5), passed by the Appellate Authority
\n       whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order of the
\n       Disciplinary Authority, was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
               The petitioner Sanjay Kumar Singh in WPS No. 218 of 2007 has challenged the
\n       order dated 19.6.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereby, the petitioner’s
\n       service was terminated. Challenge is also made to the order dated 12.9.2006 passed by
\n       the Appellate Authority whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the
\n       impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority, was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
       4.      Facts of the case of the petitioners in brief is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
               Both the petitioners were posted as constables in the district of East Singhbhum at
\n       MGM Police Station at Jamshedpur. A departmental proceeding was initiated against
\n       them upon certain charges and on the accusation that on 12.11.2005, the Additional
\n       Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur, in course of his search of the MGM Police Station
\n Mobile Van on National Highway-33, in between Dimna-Belajudi, found the Mobile
\nVan parked near Belajudi Kali Temple. The Additional Superintendent of Police saw
\nASI Ram Kumar Prasad standing behind the Mobile Jeep while Constables Prafulla
\nKumar Jha (Petitioner) and Ashok Kumar Chourasia were collecting money from drivers
\nof trucks. Two other constables namely, constable Bahadur Singh and constable Sanjay
\nKumar Singh (Petitioner) were also standing nearby. It was alleged that though, these
\npolice personnel were assigned the duty of conducting investigation in respect of a case
\nat Uuria Basti, but without being assigned any duty for checking vehicles, these
\npetitioners along with the two other constables and the ASI were found stopping trucks
\nand realizing money from the truck drivers. With these allegations, the Additional
\nSuperintendent of Police submitted a written complaint on 13.11.2005 to the
\nSuperintendent of Police.\n<\/p>\n
5.     The petitioners submitted their respective show-cause replies in response to the
\ncharges, but being not satisfied with the same, the departmental proceeding was initiated
\nagainst them.\n<\/p>\n
       In the departmental proceeding, the statement of the complainant Sudhir Kumar
\nJha, Additional Superintendent of Police, was recorded upon his examination by the
\nprosecution and cross-examination on behalf of the proceedees.\n<\/p>\n
6.     On the basis of the statements of the solitary witness, the Enquiry Officer
\nrecorded his findings that the charge stood proved against the proceedees.\n<\/p>\n
       On the basis of the inquiry report, the Superintendent of Police being the
\nDisciplinary Authority, issued second show-cause notice upon the petitioners to which,
\nthey responded by filing their show-cause replies, but being not satisfied with the same,
\nthe Disciplinary Authority by his impugned order, recorded the punishment of dismissal
\nof the present petitioners from service.\n<\/p>\n
7.     The appeal preferred by the petitioners against the impugned order of their
\ndismissal, was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by his order impugned.\n<\/p>\n
       The impugned order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority and that of
\nthe Appellate Authority, have been challenged by the petitioners on the following
\ngrounds:\n<\/p>\n
                            i. The findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse and based on
\n                            conjectures and surmises and entirely on hearsay evidence and
\n                            is also against the weight of evidence on record.
\n                            ii. The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority
\n                            have passed the impugned orders without application of mind
\n                            in a most mechanical manner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                            iii. The punishment of dismissal from service is highly
\n                            disproportionate to the charges and is also discriminatory in as
\n                            much as, the other police constable namely, Mahendra Rai who
\n                            was also found guilty of the charges, has been awarded a lesser
\n                           punishment and the ASI, who is the superior officer with
\n                          whom the petitioners were attached at the relevant time, has
\n                          been left scot free.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                          iv. Material witnesses including the drivers of the trucks from
\n                          whom money was realized, have not been examined, nor has
\n                          any complaint been filed by any such driver and neither the
\n                          names of any driver, nor registration number of any truck
\n                          which were allegedly stopped, was disclosed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.     Elaborating the grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
\nthough, the Additional Superintendent of Police, on whose complaint the departmental
\nproceeding was initiated, was examined but his evidence is entirely vague and
\nunspecific. His statement does not confirm as to from whom did the petitioners realize
\nmoney and what was the amount realized, if any and neither does he inform as to why, if
\nhe had at all seen the petitioners indulging in such acts of misconduct, did he not take
\nany prompt action if he was present at the spot. No explanation has been offered by the
\nwitness as to why no written complaint was received or even oral complaint was
\nobtained and recorded by him at the spot. Learned counsel adds further that even as per
\nthe allegations, the petitioners were attached to the ASI as members of the patrolling
\nparty and the entire responsibility of the patrolling party was on the ASI who is supposed
\nto be the immediate controlling authority of the petitioners and if the patrolling party had
\nunauthorizedly indulged in acts which were not assigned as part of their duty, the entire
\nresponsibility was on the Assistant Sub Inspector. There is no reason assigned as to why
\nthe Assistant Sub Inspector has been totally exonerated from the charges. Likewise, there
\nis no explanation as to why the other constable namely, Mahendra Rai, who is alleged to
\nbe present at the spot during the checking of the vehicles, has been left with a minor
\npunishment of black mark.\n<\/p>\n
9.     Counsel for the respondents State, on the other hand, would refute the entire
\ngrounds advanced by the petitioners and submit that the inquiry against the petitioners
\nwas conducted in a fair and just manner and in which the petitioners were given
\nreasonable and adequate opportunity of defending their cases. The finding of guilt
\nagainst the present petitioners, as recorded by the Inquiry Officer, is based on the
\nevidences of Senior Police Officer who is an eyewitness to the acts of misconduct of the
\npetitioners.\n<\/p>\n
10.    Upon hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the specific ground of
\nthe petitioners that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse and based on hearsay
\nevidence, I have gone through the Enquiry Report and the evidence of the witness. The
\ngist of the statement of the witness is that on 12.11.2005, upon receiving telephonic
\ninstructions from the Superintendent of Police, he went in search of the MGM Patrolling
\nJeep on a private vehicle and he found the Patrolling jeep parked near the temple. He saw
\na few trucks parked by the side of the road. He claims to have seen the present petitioner
\n    Prafulla Kumar Jha and Constable Sanjay Kumar Singh collecting money from the truck
\n   drivers. Thereafter, he followed the patrolling jeep to the police station and made
\n   inquiries from the ASI and recorded his statement. Beyond the above statement, this
\n   witness has not informed the name or identity of any of the truck drivers from whom
\n   money was claimed to have been realized by the petitioners, nor the registration number
\n   of the trucks which were allegedly stopped by the petitioners. He is not able to inform as
\n   to why he has not obtained any written or oral complaint from any of the truck drivers.
\n   He is not able to inform as to what amount did the petitioners realize from any of the
\n   truck drivers. He is not able to inform as to why, he being the senior police officer of the
\n   rank of Additional Superintendent of Police, he did not take prompt action against the
\n   petitioners at the spot. He does not inform as to why no money was seized from the
\n   possession of the petitioners if they had realized any money from any of the truck
\n   drivers. If the senior police officer was at all present at the spot and had seen what he has
\n   claimed to have seen, then it was a logical and reasonable expectation of him that in
\n   exercise of his authority he would immediately arrest the delinquent police personnel and
\n   detain them, recover the extorted money from their possession, record a complaint of the
\n   truck drivers from whom money was allegedly extorted, note down their names and
\n   identity and also the registration numbers of the vehicles. The fact that he has not done
\n   any of such acts and has not offered any reasonable explanation for his failure to do so,
\n   would certainly lead to a reasonable inference that he was not present at the spot and if at
\n   all, he had seen from a distance some trucks parked by the roadside and the petitioners
\n   present near the trucks, he has inferred on the basis of conjectures and surmises that the
\n   police personnel were realizing money from the truck drivers. The cryptic evidence of
\n   the witness needs much to be answered and could not have been more vague in the
\n   context of the charges framed against the petitioners. Such evidence cannot be deemed
\n   sufficient by any stretch of inferences, except on the basis of conjectures and surmises, to
\n   hold that the petitioners had unauthorizedly stopped the vehicles on the road and were
\n   illegally realizing money from the truck drivers.\n<\/p>\n
        The only inference which could be drawn on the basis of the evidence of this witness
\nis that the escort party comprising of the constables including the present petitioners and
\nheaded by the ASI of Police, had committed acts of dereliction of duty in as much as,
\ninstead of proceeding to attend the assigned duty of investigation at Uuria Basti, they were
\nfound present at a totally different place for which they had not offered any explanation. The
\nliability for such acts of dereliction of duty would therefore extend not only to the present
\npetitioners, but to the entire team including the team leader ASI of Police and the other two
\nconstables.\n<\/p>\n
  11.     The Inquiring Officer appears to have allowed himself to be persuaded by the
\n  statement of the senior police officer attaching undue weight to his evidence without
\n  considering the fact that even going by the entire evidence of the witness, no conclusive
\n  inference could be drawn that the petitioners had stopped any vehicle and had illegally
\n realized money from any truck driver. There appears just and sufficient ground to hold
\nthat the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse, misconceived and not based upon
\nunbiased and reasonable appreciation of evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
12.      It is established principle of law that in the departmental proceeding, even though,
\nthe provisions of the Indian Evidence Act may not be called for strict application, but the
\nbasic principles of natural justice cannot be ignored. It is one of the basic principles of
\nevidence that the charge has to be proved by direct evidence or such evidence which has
\na definite bearing and relevance to the facts and issue. It is also a Rule of law relating to
\nproof of charge in the departmental proceeding the suspicion howsoever high, cannot be
\nsubstitute for legal proof. The departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding and
\nthe Inquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The Inquiry Officer has a duty to
\narrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the
\nparties and the findings in respect of guilt or otherwise of the charges, should be recorded
\non the basis of the weight of evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
13.      It appears from the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority, as also that of
\nthe Appellate Authority that both the officers have accepted the findings of the Inquiry
\nOfficer in a mechanical manner without application of mind to the relevant issues raised
\nby the petitioners in their respective show-cause replies \/ explanations that in absence of
\na definite and conclusive proof of the allegations that the petitioners had stopped vehicles
\nand had realized money from the truck drivers, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are
\nmisconceived. The only act of misconduct which, even if taken into consideration and
\nwhich if commonly applied to all the police personnel constituting the patrolling party
\nincluding the group leader namely, the ASI and the constables attached with him is that
\nthey had committed dereliction of duty. If the acceptable portion of the evidence is to
\ncommonly apply to each and every member of the patrolling party and yet, the ASI can
\nbe exonerated from the charges and the other constable be given a lesser punishment,
\nthere was no reason why a different treatment should be given to the petitioners in the
\nmatter of punishment.\n<\/p>\n
14.      Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the
\ndiscussions made above, in my view, the punishment of dismissal of the petitioners from
\nservice is highly disproportionate to the nature of charges levelled against them and is
\nharsh.\n<\/p>\n
         The impugned orders of punishment as passed against the petitioners by the
\nDisciplinary Authority and the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, are
\ntherefore hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority for
\nreconsideration on the quantum of punishment other than dismissal from service, to the
\nsame extent as awarded to the other constable namely, Mahendra Rai. Both the
\npetitioners shall be entitled to be reinstated in service forthwith. The period between the
\ndate of their termination from service and the date of their reinstatement, shall be deemed
\nas period spent on duty, for the purpose of computing their pension and other retiral
\n        benefits. However, in absence of any specific pleading that during this entire period they
\n       were not gainfully employed, the petitioners shall not be entitled to claim back wages.\n<\/p>\n
              Both these writ applications are disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                          (D.G.R. Patnaik, J)
\nJharkhand High Court, Ranchi
\nDated 26th March 2010
\nRanjeet\/A.F.R.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court Sanjay Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 26 March, 2010 W.P. (S) No. 140 of 2007 with W.P.(S) No. 218 of 2007 — In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. — Prafulla Kumar Jha (WPS 140\/07) Sanjay Kumar Singh (WPS 218\/07) Petitioners […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-138081","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSanjay Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 26 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sanjay Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 26 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-12T11:37:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sanjay Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 26 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-12T11:37:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2455,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Sanjay Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 26 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-12T11:37:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sanjay Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 26 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sanjay Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 26 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sanjay Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 26 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-12T11:37:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sanjay Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 26 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-12T11:37:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010"},"wordCount":2455,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010","name":"Sanjay Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 26 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-12T11:37:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sanjay Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 26 March, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138081","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=138081"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138081\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138081"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138081"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138081"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}