{"id":14193,"date":"2010-06-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010"},"modified":"2019-02-21T14:38:49","modified_gmt":"2019-02-21T09:08:49","slug":"brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Brahmdeo Choudhary &amp; Anr vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 25 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Brahmdeo Choudhary &amp; Anr vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 25 June, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                                               1\n\n               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.\n                              Cr. M.P. No. 716 of 2009\n                                             ...\n              Kapildeo Singh                                    ...      ...      Petitioner\n                                     -V e r s u s-\n              The State of Jharkhand &amp; another                  ...      ...      Opposite Parties\n                                             ...\nCORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.\n                                             ...\n              For the Petitioner     : - Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate\n              For the State          : - A.P.P.\n                                             ...\n4\/ 25.06.2010<\/pre>\n<p>         This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure<br \/>\n              has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the entire criminal<br \/>\n              proceeding pending against him before the court below, arising out of FIR vide<br \/>\n              Khunti P.S. Case No. 62 of 1998 corresponding to G.R. No. 333 of 1998,<br \/>\n              registered for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian<br \/>\n              Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>              2.     The petitioner has challenged the continuation of the proceeding on the<br \/>\n              following grounds :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                     (i)     That the very cognizance of the offence against the petitioner is<br \/>\n                             bad in law and has been passed without application of judicial<br \/>\n                             mind.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                     (ii)    That for the same charge and on the same allegations, a<br \/>\n                             departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in<br \/>\n                             which, after thorough enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has found that<br \/>\n                             the charge is not proved against the petitioner and therefore had<br \/>\n                             exonerated the petitioner from the charge.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                     (iii)   That the investigation of the case which was registered way back<br \/>\n                             on 13.08.1998, did not conclude even after more than 12 years<br \/>\n                             infringing thereby the fundamental right of the petitioner for<br \/>\n                             speedy investigation and trial.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>              3.     Elaborating his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner would read<br \/>\n              out the contents of the FIR and explain that as per the FIR, it is alleged that the<br \/>\n              petitioner in his capacity of Executive Engineer, had knowingly accepted forged<br \/>\n              Bank Guarantees from the co-accused contractor and on the basis of such Bank<br \/>\n              Guarantees, the contractor had managed not only to obtain the contract job but<br \/>\n              also to withdraw substantial amount of money.\n<\/p>\n<p>                     Learned counsel explains that while the petitioner was posted as the<br \/>\n              Executive Engineer at Khunti, a tender was invited by the Chief Engineer,<br \/>\n              Minor Irrigation, Ranchi vide No. 04\/95-96 of Package No. 5. The estimated<br \/>\n              value of the tender was Rs. 84.25 lakhs. The bid security was in the shape of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Bank Guarantee to be valid for 45 days beyond the validity of bid as specified in<br \/>\nthe bidding document. The tender was finalized in the name of M\/s. Uma<br \/>\nEngineering Company. The contractor, who submitted bid security worth Rs.<br \/>\n1.65 lakhs in the shape of Bank Guarantees to the Chief Engineer, Minor<br \/>\nIrrigation, Ranchi, was directed by the Chief Engineer to contact the Executive<br \/>\nEngineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Khunti for signing an agreement, after<br \/>\nfurnishing the performance security worth Rs. 6,82,177\/- in the shape of Bank<br \/>\nGuarantee as per the condition in the tender document.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Learned counsel adds further that on submission of the Bank Guarantee<br \/>\nby the contractor, the petitioner had forwarded the same to the Canara Bank to<br \/>\nwhich the Bank Guarantee was drawn and only after being informed by the<br \/>\nBank that the Bank Guarantee was genuine, did the petitioner proceed to execute<br \/>\nan agreement with the contractor as per the authority vested in him.<br \/>\nSubsequently, the contractor sought for replacement of the Bank Guarantee by<br \/>\nfresh similar Bank Guarantees and on each occasion the petitioner had obtained<br \/>\nthe certificate of the Bank regarding the genuineness of the Bank Guarantees. It<br \/>\nwas only after verification of the Bank Guarantee and being informed of the<br \/>\nsame being genuine, did the petitioner direct the Assistant Engineer to prepare<br \/>\nthe bill for mobilization advance in favour of the contractor and till June 1997<br \/>\nwhile the petitioner was posted at the station, the contractor could draw the<br \/>\namount of 60% of the work completed. Later, in July, 1997 the petitioner was<br \/>\ntransferred from the post of Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Khunti to<br \/>\nMohania Tubewell Division and in course of time he retired from service in<br \/>\n1999.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Learned counsel explains further that the aforesaid entire facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances including the certificates issued by the concerned bank<br \/>\nconfirming the genuineness of the Bank Guarantees supplied by the contractor,<br \/>\nwere considered by the Enquiry Officer in the departmental proceeding initiated<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner and only after being thoroughly satisfied that the petitioner<br \/>\nwas in no way at fault, did the Enquiry Officer record his finding that the charge<br \/>\nof conniving with the contractor in the submission of the fake and forged Bank<br \/>\nGuarantees was not proved against him. The finding of the Enquiry Officer was<br \/>\naccepted by the disciplinary authority of the petitioner and no further action was<br \/>\ntherefore taken against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Learned counsel adds further that even otherwise, the allegation that the<br \/>\npetitioner had connived with the contractor in submission of the fake Bank<br \/>\nGuarantees is a vague and omnibus statement without considering the fact that<br \/>\nthe bank on which the Bank Guarantees were drawn, had issued certificates<br \/>\nconfirming that the Bank Guarantees were genuine. Learned counsel adds that<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be accused of having connived<br \/>\nwith the contractor in the matter of submission of any fake Bank Guarantee.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Learned counsel adds that furthermore, the fact that though the case was<br \/>\ninstituted way back in 1998 and yet, investigation could not be concluded<br \/>\nbeyond more than 12 years prior to the date of filing the instant criminal<br \/>\nmiscellaneous petition, in itself, would confirm that the petitioner&#8217;s available<br \/>\nconstitutional right of speedy investigation and trial has been infringed.\n<\/p>\n<p>       To buttress his arguments, learned counsel refers to and relies upon a<br \/>\njudgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of<br \/>\nMaharashtra &amp; Others AIR 2008 S.C. 3077.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.     Learned counsel for the State argues that the grounds advanced by the<br \/>\npetitioner relating to the facts of the case are such as could possibly be<br \/>\nappreciated only by the trial court because the same happen to be the grounds of<br \/>\ndefence taken by the petitioner against the charge for which he is sought to be<br \/>\nprosecuted. Learned counsel however concedes that as per instructions received,<br \/>\nthough the investigation had commenced after institution of the case in<br \/>\nFebruary, 1998, but the investigation could not conclude even after more than 12<br \/>\nyears and it was recently n 01.06.2010, that the investigation was concluded and<br \/>\ncharge-sheet submitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.     I have heard counsel for the parties and have also gone through the<br \/>\nmaterials available on record and I find force in the arguments advanced on<br \/>\nbehalf of the petitioner for the following reasons :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>       (i)     Admittedly, on the same charge, a departmental proceeding was<br \/>\n               conducted against the petitioner. The charge against the petitioner<br \/>\n               in the departmental proceeding was that he had connived with the<br \/>\n               contractor in the matter of submission of fake Bank Guarantees.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       (ii)    On the same nature of allegations, the present case was registered<br \/>\n               in which cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections<br \/>\n               420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code besides<br \/>\n               the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, primarily<br \/>\n               against the contractor and also against the petitioner and others.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       (iii)   Admittedly, at the departmental enquiry, the petitioner could<br \/>\n               establish that in the matter of submission of purported fake Bank<br \/>\n               Guarantees by the contractor, there was no connivance on his part<br \/>\n               and he had merely acted in his official capacity not only as per<br \/>\n               direction of his superior in office, but after being satisfied upon<br \/>\n               the certificates issued by the bank about the genuineness of the<br \/>\n               Bank Guarantees furnished by the contractor. There is no<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>               allegation that the petitioner had derived or made any wrongful<br \/>\n               gain for himself.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>6.     In the light of such facts, there appears no sufficient material to<br \/>\nconstitute the ingredients of any offence for which cognizance was taken by the<br \/>\ncourt below against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.     Even otherwise, the admitted fact is that the investigation which had<br \/>\ncommenced in February, 1998, did not conclude even after more than 12 years.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.     An identical issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Court<br \/>\nin the case of Pankaj Kumar (Supra). The facts in the case of Pankaj Kumar<br \/>\nindicated that after institution of the case against the writ petitioner therein, the<br \/>\ninvestigation did not conclude even after eight years of the commencement of<br \/>\nthe investigation. Referring to an earlier judgement of the Supreme Court in the<br \/>\ncase of Santosh Deo Vs. Archna Guha &amp; Ors. 1994 AIR SCW 1480 and on an<br \/>\nanother judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Som Mittal Vs.<br \/>\nGovernment of Karnataka 2008 AIR SCW 1640 and also on a much earlier<br \/>\njudgement in the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India &amp; Anr. AIR 1978<br \/>\nS.C. 597, the Supreme Court has held in the following terms :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                       &#8220;Tested on the touchstone of the broad principles,<br \/>\n               enumerated above, we are of the opinion that in the instant case,<br \/>\n               appellant&#8217;s constitutional right recognised under Article 21 of the<br \/>\n               Constitution stands violated.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       The Court has further made the following observations :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                       &#8220;The lackadaisical manner of investigation spread over<br \/>\n               for a period of four years in a case of this type and inordinate<br \/>\n               delay of over eight years, is manifestly clear. Thus, on facts in<br \/>\n               hand, we are convinced that the appellant has been denied his<br \/>\n               valuable constitutional right to a speedy investigation and trial<br \/>\n               and , therefore, criminal proceedings initiated against him in the<br \/>\n               year 1987 and pending in the court of Special Judge, Latur,<br \/>\n               deserve to be quashed on this short ground alone.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>7.     The facts of the present case are almost identical as in the case of Pankaj<br \/>\nKumar (Supra).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>8.     As observed above, the investigation of this case which was commenced<br \/>\nin February, 1998, did not conclude even after 12 years and it was only recently<br \/>\nthat the charge-sheet was submitted. No reason has been explained as to why the<br \/>\ninvestigation could not conclude within a reasonable time. The observation as<br \/>\nmade by the Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar (Supra) regarding the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>            lackadaisical manner of investigation, does apply in the facts of the present case<br \/>\n            also.\n<\/p>\n<p>            9.      In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I find force in the<br \/>\n            arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, this<br \/>\n            application is allowed. The entire criminal proceeding pending against the<br \/>\n            petitioner before the court below which was initiated pursuant to the institution<br \/>\n            of the case vide Khunti P.S. Case No. 62 of 1998 corresponding to G.R. No. 333<br \/>\n            of 1998, is hereby quashed<\/p>\n<p>                                                                 (D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)<br \/>\nBirendra\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court Brahmdeo Choudhary &amp; Anr vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 25 June, 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. Cr. M.P. No. 716 of 2009 &#8230; Kapildeo Singh &#8230; &#8230; Petitioner -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand &amp; another &#8230; &#8230; Opposite Parties &#8230; [&hellip;]<\/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-14193","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Brahmdeo Choudhary &amp; Anr vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 25 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Brahmdeo Choudhary &amp; Anr vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 25 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-21T09:08:49+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Brahmdeo Choudhary &amp; Anr vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 25 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-21T09:08:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1672,\"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\\\/brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Brahmdeo Choudhary &amp; Anr vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 25 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-21T09:08:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Brahmdeo Choudhary &amp; Anr vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 25 June, 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":"Brahmdeo Choudhary &amp; Anr vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 25 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Brahmdeo Choudhary &amp; Anr vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 25 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-21T09:08:49+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Brahmdeo Choudhary &amp; Anr vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 25 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-21T09:08:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010"},"wordCount":1672,"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\/brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010","name":"Brahmdeo Choudhary &amp; Anr vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 25 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-21T09:08:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brahmdeo-choudhary-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-anr-on-25-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Brahmdeo Choudhary &amp; Anr vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Anr on 25 June, 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\/14193","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=14193"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14193\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14193"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14193"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14193"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}