{"id":180548,"date":"2010-07-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-2010"},"modified":"2014-09-30T03:19:22","modified_gmt":"2014-09-29T21:49:22","slug":"jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jitendra Jha vs Unknown on 26 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Orissa High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Jitendra Jha vs Unknown on 26 July, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                               V.GOPALA GOWDA, CJ &amp; I.MAHANTY, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>                           W.P.(C) No. 5417 of 2010 (Decided on 26.7.2010).\n<\/p>\n<pre>JITENDRA JHA                                        ...........           Petitioner.\n\n\n                                 .Vrs.\n\n\nSTATE OF ORISSA                              ..........                 Opp.Parties.\n\n\nNATIONAL SECURITY ACT, 1980 (ACT NO. 65 OF 1980) - SEC. 3 (2).\n\n\n    For Petitioner    - M\/s. Umesh Chandra Pattnaik, J.K.Mohanty &amp; S.Das.\n    For Opp.Parties - Govt. Advocate (for O.P.Nos.1 to 3)\n                       Assistant Solicitor General (For O.P.No.4).\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. The petitioner-detenu under the National Security Act, 1980 questions the<br \/>\ncorrectness of the order of detention dated 9.3.2010 passed by the District Magistrate,Keonjhar-<br \/>\nopposite party no.1 and the order of approval of the said order of detention by the State Government<br \/>\nin exercise of power under sub-section (4) of the National Security Act, 1980 produced at Annexures-1<br \/>\nand 7 respectively urging various facts and legal contentions and prays for quashing the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. Necessary brief facts are stated for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions with a<br \/>\nview to find out if the petitioner is entitled for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of<br \/>\ndetention and order of approval passed by the State Government directing the detaining authority to<br \/>\nset him at liberty.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The petitioner is a law abiding citizen and is doing transport business and is also supplying<br \/>\nlabourers for loading and unloading of mineral ore at the railway siding at Barbil. He is also an income<br \/>\ntax assessee. It is further stated by him that he was arrested by the Barbil police on 5\/6.3.2010 at<br \/>\nabout 2 p.m. from his residential house. It is his case that on that day the police entered into his house<br \/>\nby breaking open the window without any search warrant and thereafter he was apprehended. After<br \/>\narresting the petitioner, F.I.R. was written on a plain paper and the same was registered as Barbil<br \/>\nP.S.Case No. 58 dated 6.3.2010 under sections 307\/353\/387 IPC read with sections 25\/27 of the Arms<br \/>\nAct. It is the further case of the petitioner that no revolver was recovered from his possession or from<br \/>\nhis house on the alleged day of arrest. It is the case of the petitioner that he was in custody in<br \/>\nconnection with Barbil P.S.Case No. 58 of 2010 and no bail application had been filed but the order of<br \/>\ndetention was served on him on 9.3.2010 vide Annexure-1 illegally and arbitrarily without recording<br \/>\nthat the petitioner was likely to be released on bail. It is submitted that not only the impugned order<br \/>\nhas been passed against the petitioner to detain him in the jail custody but also the police has foisted<br \/>\nthree other cases against him which has not been cited in the grounds of detention when it was served<br \/>\n upon him and he has never committed such offences as alleged against him in the grounds of<br \/>\ndetention dated 12.3.2010 communicated to him after the order of detention was served upon him.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.     In pursuant to the order of detention and the grounds of detention he had submitted<br \/>\nrepresentation under section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the Act&#8217; in<br \/>\nshort) through the Superintendent of Jail to opposite party no.1 for consideration contending that the<br \/>\norder of detention as approved by the State Government is void ab initio. Therefore, he has requested<br \/>\nto release him from the illegal detention.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. The grounds of attack of the order of detention are that the said order is illegal as the same is<br \/>\narbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the Act as the allegations in the number of<br \/>\ncriminal cases against him do not make out case of disturbance of public order, still the order of<br \/>\ndetention was passed and has been approved by opposite party no.1 without application of mind.<br \/>\nTherefore, the same is liable to be quashed. Opposite party no.2 while passing the order of detention<br \/>\nhas not recorded his subjective satisfaction with regard to disturbance of public order by the alleged<br \/>\ncriminal activities of the petitioner referred to in the grounds of detention dated 12.3.2010 which were<br \/>\nprepared three days after the order of detention was passed. Therefore, the detention order is wholly<br \/>\nunsustainable in law. The further ground of attack of the impugned order is that the order of detention<br \/>\nand the grounds of detention are not forwarded to the State Government together forthwith. Therefore,<br \/>\nthe date on which the order of detention was passed, the grounds of detention on the basis of which<br \/>\nthe detention order was passed were not there. This aspect of the matter has not been taken into<br \/>\nconsideration by the State Government at the time of granting approval to the order of detention.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. Learned counsel for the petitioner places strong reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court<br \/>\nin <a href=\"\/doc\/1773930\/\">Pooja Batra v. Union of India and others<\/a> reported in AIR 2009 SC 2256, wherein the apex Court<br \/>\nwhile examining the preventive detention order passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange<br \/>\nand Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with reference to the relevant provisions, namely,<br \/>\nSections 2(39), 111 and 113 of the Customs Act after referring to its earlier decisions in the case of<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/672642\/\">Chowdarapu Raghunandan v. State of Tamil Nadu and others<\/a>, 2002 (3) SCC 754 and Kothari<br \/>\nFilaments and another v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, JT 2009 (1) S.C. 516 wherein the<br \/>\napex Court held that, if any enquiry is inconclusive pending consideration the same cannot be the<br \/>\nbasis for passing an order against the person concerned, held that use of incomplete material which is<br \/>\neither pending or inconclusive cannot be a basis for detention order. With reference to the criminal<br \/>\ncases referred to in the grounds of detention, it is submitted that the detaining authority has not<br \/>\nconsidered the relevant factual position, namely, out of the six cases referred to in the grounds of<br \/>\ndetention in Barbil P.S.Case No. 187 of 2005 the petitioner was acquitted on 25.5.2007. In Barbil<br \/>\nP.S.Case No. 228 of 2007 for the offences under sections 147\/148\/323\/149 IPC, the petitioner is not<br \/>\nnamed in the FIR. In Barbil P.S.Case No.100 of 2008 for the offences under sections<br \/>\n147\/148\/452\/341\/302\/149 IPC the petitioner is not named in the FIR. Barbil P.S.Case No. 5 of 2010 for<br \/>\nthe alleged offence under sections 341\/323\/5-6\/34 IPC has been compromised. In Barbil P.S.S.D.E.<br \/>\nNo. 60 of 2010 no offence is alleged and no FIR is lodged either by police or public. Barbil P.S.Case<br \/>\nNo.58 of 2010 for the alleged offences under section 353\/307\/387 IPC read with Sections 25\/27 of the<br \/>\nArms Act has been registered on plain paper F.I.R. drawn by the police and the police seized cash,<br \/>\ngold ornaments from the house of the petitioner. That case is still pending investigation and therefore<br \/>\nthe same cannot be a ground for passing the order of detention on the allegation that there was<br \/>\ndisturbance of public order. Therefore, the grounds of detention are totally irrelevant. Further placing<br \/>\nreliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Tito alias Sayed Usdman Ali v. State of<br \/>\nOrissa and others, 2003 (I) OLR 350, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of<br \/>\ndetention passed under section 3(2) of the Act by the detaining authority against the petitioner, on the<br \/>\nassumption that there is likelihood of the petitioner being enlarged on bail without there being any<br \/>\n cogent material for such assumption cannot be said to be the subjective satisfaction of the detaining<br \/>\nauthority.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. Shri Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate placed strong reliance upon the following<br \/>\ndecisions of the Supreme Court, namely, 1975 (2) SCC 255, A.K.Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC<br \/>\n710, Smt.Shalini Soni and others v. Union of India and others, (1980) 4 S.C.C. 544 and a Division<br \/>\nBench decision of this Court reported in 1988 Crl.LJ 32 para 11 in support of his contention that the<br \/>\ngrounds of detention need not be sent to the detenu along with the order of detention and on this<br \/>\nground the order of approval of detention order cannot be quashed. Learned counsel has placed<br \/>\nreliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/350618\/\">Surya Narayan Polei v.<br \/>\nSecretary<\/a> to Government of Orissa, Department of Home (Special Section) reported in 2004 (1) OLR<br \/>\n164 and also on Section 10 of the Act regarding representation of the petitioner. The same was placed<br \/>\nbefore the Board. Therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. In support of his submission he<br \/>\nplaced reliance on the decision reported in AIR 1986 SC 207 <a href=\"\/doc\/276203\/\">State of U.P. v. Mahant Singh. As the<\/a><br \/>\norder of detention was placed before the Advisory Board within the time stipulated and the<br \/>\nrepresentation of the petitioner was forwarded to the Board and the same was considered and<br \/>\nexamined by the Board, it is submitted that the procedural safeguards before passing the order of<br \/>\ndetention are complied with.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   With reference to the above said rival legal contentions, the question that would arise for<br \/>\nconsideration is whether the order of detention and approval of the same are liable to be quashed.<br \/>\nWhat order ?\n<\/p>\n<p>9. The aforesaid points are required to be answered in favour of the petitioner for the following<br \/>\nreasons. The order of detention is dated 9.3.2010. As could be seen from the original file made<br \/>\navailable for our perusal, no doubt the grounds on which the order of detention is passed to detain the<br \/>\npetitioner in the jail is on the alleged violation of public order but there are no reference to the cases<br \/>\nreferred to in the grounds of detention prepared in the order-sheet of the original file and the said order<br \/>\nis not the grounds of detention communicated and served upon the petitioner, along with the detention<br \/>\norder and the same is not the grounds of detention in support of the detention order sent<br \/>\ntogether with the detention order to the State Government for its approval. The order of detention is<br \/>\nliable to be quashed for the reason that the grounds mentioned in the original file the details of the<br \/>\ngrounds against the petitioner are not forthcoming, but the details are stated in the grounds of<br \/>\ndetention dated 12.3.2010 which was communicated and served upon the detenu. Therefore, there<br \/>\nwas absolutely no application of mind in the subjective satisfaction of the State Government at the<br \/>\ntime of approval of the detention order. Another important undisputed fact is that out of six cases<br \/>\nalleged against the petitioner, which are adverted to in the grounds of detention to reach the subjective<br \/>\nsatisfaction to detain the petitioner, only one case is pending against the petitioner that too at the<br \/>\nstage of investigation. In that case, the petitioner was arrested and sent to judicial custody. The reason<br \/>\nassigned in the detention order that the petitioner is likely to be enlarged on bail cannot be a ground<br \/>\nfor passing the order of detention under section 3 (2) of the Act. This conclusion of ours is supported<br \/>\nby the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sunil Rajgarhia Vs. State of Orissa &amp; Ors.,<br \/>\nreported in 2003((I) OLR 355. Therefore, the detention is contrary to the decision of the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt in the case of Pooja Batra (supra) as the grounds on which the detention order is passed is<br \/>\ntotally irrelevant and non-existing fact as the criminal case in Barbil P.S.Case No. 5 of 2010 is still at<br \/>\nthe investigation stage. Therefore, on this ground also the order of detention and the order of approval<br \/>\npassed by the State Government are liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has<br \/>\nrightly placed reliance on the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pooja Batra in<br \/>\nwhich case the Supreme Court has referred to <a href=\"\/doc\/672642\/\">Chowdarapu Raghunandan v. State of Tamil Nadu<\/a><br \/>\n(supra) where the apex Court has held that inconclusive state of investigation cannot legitimately help<br \/>\nthe authority to pass the order of detention against the detenu on perfunctory and inchoate material<br \/>\nrelied upon. The said decision is aptly applicable to the fact situation. Therefore, the impugned order is<br \/>\n liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the justification sought for by the learned Government Advocate<br \/>\nMr.Mohapatra placing reliance upon the various judgments of the Supreme Court adverted to in his<br \/>\nsubmission referred to in the earlier paragraph of this judgment are wholly misplaced and untenable in<br \/>\nlaw and therefore the observations made in the aforesaid decisions are wholly inapplicable to the fact<br \/>\nsituation as the facts of this case as referred to supra are undisputed. Therefore, the decisions on<br \/>\nwhich reliance is placed by the learned Government Advocate are not of any assistance in justification<br \/>\nof the order of detention and the approval of the same passed by the State Government respectively.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition must succeed. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and<br \/>\nthe impugned order of detention is quashed and the Jail Authorities are directed to release the<br \/>\npetitioner forthwith unless his detention is warranted in connection with any other case which is<br \/>\npending against him.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                  Writ petition allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Orissa High Court Jitendra Jha vs Unknown on 26 July, 2010 V.GOPALA GOWDA, CJ &amp; I.MAHANTY, J. W.P.(C) No. 5417 of 2010 (Decided on 26.7.2010). JITENDRA JHA &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. Petitioner. .Vrs. STATE OF ORISSA &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. Opp.Parties. NATIONAL SECURITY ACT, 1980 (ACT NO. 65 OF 1980) &#8211; SEC. 3 (2). For Petitioner &#8211; M\/s. Umesh Chandra Pattnaik, [&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":[8,25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-180548","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-orissa-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Jitendra Jha vs Unknown on 26 July, 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\/jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jitendra Jha vs Unknown on 26 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-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=\"2010-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-09-29T21:49:22+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jitendra Jha vs Unknown on 26 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-29T21:49:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2091,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Orissa High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Jitendra Jha vs Unknown on 26 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-29T21:49:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jitendra Jha vs Unknown on 26 July, 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":"Jitendra Jha vs Unknown on 26 July, 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\/jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jitendra Jha vs Unknown on 26 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-09-29T21:49:22+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jitendra Jha vs Unknown on 26 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-29T21:49:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-2010"},"wordCount":2091,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Orissa High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-2010","name":"Jitendra Jha vs Unknown on 26 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-29T21:49:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-jha-vs-unknown-on-26-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jitendra Jha vs Unknown on 26 July, 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\/180548","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=180548"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180548\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180548"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180548"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180548"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}