{"id":30440,"date":"2011-09-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011"},"modified":"2016-05-01T23:02:59","modified_gmt":"2016-05-01T17:32:59","slug":"rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Rajendra Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 19 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n
Rajendra Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 19 September, 2011<\/div>\n
                                1\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n           W.P. (Cr.) (H.B.)No. 122 of 2011\n\nRajendra Singh   ...       ......   ...   ...      Petitioner\n                           Versus\n1.The State of Jharkhand\n2.The Secretary, Department of Home, State of Jharkhand\n3.The District Magistrate, Dhanbad.... ..... Respondents\n                       -------\n\nCORAM:      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE\n             HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.P. BHATT\n                  -   -----\nFor the Petitioner   : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Adv.\nFor the State        : S.C. II\n\nReportable             ------         Dated 19th September, 2011\n\n     The petitioner was served with a notice dated 27th\n\nNovember, 2010, under Section 3 of the Jharkhand Control of\n\nCrimes Act, 2002 (wrongly mentioned in the notice as Bihar\n\nControl of Crimes Act, 1981), a copy of which has been placed\n\non record as Annexure-1. The petitioner's contention is that he\n\nsubmitted representation against the said notice; however,\n\nproceeding under Section 3 of the Act of 1981 was dropped\n\nvide order dated 25th March, 2011 after observing that since\n\nan order under Section 12 (2) of the Act of 2002 for detention\n\nof the petitioner has been passed, the proceeding under\n\nSection 3 of the Act of 2002 has become infructuous. On 25th\n\nMarch, 2011 a separate order of detention was passed under\n\nSection 12 (2) of the Act of 2002, a copy of which has been\n\nplaced on record as Annexure 4 and grounds for passing such\n\na order are given separately in memo no.          454\/c dated 25th\n\nMarch, 2011. The petitioner's further contention is that\n\nimmediately after service of detention order, he submitted a\n\nrepresentation against the order of detention to the State\n\nGovernment through the Jail Authorities as it is permissible\n                                    2\n\nand a right given to every detenue under Section 17 (1) of the\n\nAct of 2002. The State Authority was under obligation to\n\ndecide the representation of the writ petitioner forthwith and\n\nif,   not forthwith,         then without any delay. This right of\n\nrepresentation of the petitioner is not only by virtue of Section\n\n17 (1) of the Act of 2002, but as has been conferred by Clause\n\n5 of the Article 22 of the Constitution of India.\n\n2.      By not deciding the petitioner's representation, the State\n\nGovernment has violated the Constitutional provision and\n\nplayed with the liberty of the writ petitioner as if,                  the\n\npetitioner's representation would have been considered in\n\ntime,    the     State     Government    may      have       dropped   the\n\nproceedings initiated under Section 12 (2) of the Act of 2002.\n\nNot only this, the petitioner when challenged the order of\n\ndetention, the State Government passed the confirmation\n\norder on 31st March, 2011 and that too, without rejecting the\n\npetitioner's        said       representation.       The      petitioner's\n\nrepresentation       even thereafter      was    not   considered      and\n\ndecided     by    the      State   Government    and    the    petitioner,\n\ntherefore, preferred the writ petition before this Court on\n\n20.05.2011<\/pre>\n
 challenging the petitioner’s detention.             In the writ<\/p>\n
petition, counter was filed by the State on 26.6.2011 and then,<\/p>\n
before     filing    the      counter   affidavit,     the    petitioner’s<\/p>\n
representation was not considered and decided by the State<\/p>\n
Government, though it would not have made the illegal<\/p>\n
detention of the petitioner a legal detention. The State<\/p>\n
Government, after two months of filing of the counter in futile<\/p>\n
effort to cover up the illegality, on 6th August, 2011, rejected<\/p>\n
the petitioner’s representation vide,          order placed on record
\n                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
as Annexure ‘X’,    submitted along with the supplementary<\/p>\n
affidavit dated 17th August, 2011. The representation of the<\/p>\n
petitioner has been rejected after taking into consideration the<\/p>\n
opinion of the Advisory Board also but without considering any<\/p>\n
of the submissions of the writ petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted<\/p>\n
that consideration of the representation of a detenue is<\/p>\n
mandatory and non-deciding of the representation of the<\/p>\n
detenue renders    the detention proceeding invalid. Learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Mohinuddin<\/p>\n
alias Moin Master Vs. District Magistrate, Beed and others<\/p>\n
reported in (1987) 4 SCC 58, wherein it has been held that<\/p>\n
failure on the part of the State Government to consider the<\/p>\n
representation made by the detenue renders the detention of<\/p>\n
the detenue    invalid and continuation of detention,   in such<\/p>\n
situation, is constitutionally impermissible.<\/p>\n
4.    Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that<\/p>\n
detaining authority even did not apply mind to the facts of the<\/p>\n
case. The detaining authority considered five criminal cases<\/p>\n
registered against the petitioner, out of which in two of the<\/p>\n
cases, the petitioner was already acquitted and in two of the<\/p>\n
cases anticipatory bail was already granted and in one of the<\/p>\n
cases, the petitioner’s appeal for grant of bail was pending<\/p>\n
and, therefore, the grounds mentioned in the order of the<\/p>\n
detaining authority dated 25th March, 2011, cannot justify the<\/p>\n
detention of the writ petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
5.    Learned counsel for the State supporting the orders<\/p>\n
impugned,     submitted that there is no period of limitation
\n                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
prescribed in Section 17 (1) of Act of 2002 for deciding the<\/p>\n
representation of the detenue and the petitioner’s case for<\/p>\n
detention has been conformed by the State Government and<\/p>\n
also by the Advisory Board and, therefore, now the detention<\/p>\n
order cannot be set aside when the petitioner’s representation<\/p>\n
has been rejected by the State Government vide order dated<\/p>\n
6th August, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
6.    We considered the submissions of learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the parties and perused the facts of the case.<\/p>\n
7.    Undisputedly,    the       right   to   represent   against   the<\/p>\n
detention is given by the specific provision made in the<\/p>\n
Constitution under Clause 5 of the Article 22                  of the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India and it is in relation to the highest right of<\/p>\n
any person i.e., for liberty. The Section 17 (1) of the Act of<\/p>\n
2002 may not have provided for considering and deciding the<\/p>\n
representation by the State Government in any particular<\/p>\n
period, but from reading of the entire Act of 2002, it is clear<\/p>\n
that for every action, very short period has been given to the<\/p>\n
authorities in the matter of taking decision like, confirmation<\/p>\n
of the detention order by the State Government and for<\/p>\n
placing of the matter before the Advisory Board and obtaining<\/p>\n
decision of the Advisory Board. In that fact situation and in<\/p>\n
consonance with the scheme of the Act of 2002, it cannot be<\/p>\n
held that merely because there is no period of limitation in<\/p>\n
Section 17 (1) of the Act of 2002, the State Government can<\/p>\n
pass order on the representation of the detenue at any time<\/p>\n
and beyond the time by which the matter can be referred to<\/p>\n
the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board may pass order.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the order on the representation of the detenue can
\n                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
be passed without any delay by the State Government and if it<\/p>\n
is delayed, as delayed in this case, by almost more than four<\/p>\n
months, then such orders are liable to be set aside. Hence,<\/p>\n
the detention order in this case is set aside.<\/p>\n
8.    At this juncture, we may observe here that in this Court<\/p>\n
most of the writ petitions are filed with the ground that in the<\/p>\n
grounds given by the detaining authority, only the fact of the<\/p>\n
criminal cases are incorporated by the detaining authority<\/p>\n
without mentioning any fact that in the cases considered by<\/p>\n
the detaining authority,       whether    the accused has     been<\/p>\n
acquitted or found guilty or in those cases any bail has been<\/p>\n
granted or rejected by the Courts etc. Because of this reason,<\/p>\n
only it is normally argued that the detaining authority has not<\/p>\n
applied its mind to the facts of the case and has taken into<\/p>\n
account only the facts which are against the person against<\/p>\n
whom order of detention has been passed. The scope for<\/p>\n
consideration and powers as well as requirement              under<\/p>\n
Section 12 (2) of the Act is entirely different than the<\/p>\n
proceedings   and   requirements     in     any   criminal   cases.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the detaining authority, after examining the facts<\/p>\n
of the case and even the fact of acquittal of the accused in a<\/p>\n
case and grant of bail, independently after taking into account<\/p>\n
all facts, may decide       whether detention of the person<\/p>\n
concerned is necessary to prevent him from acting in any<\/p>\n
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and<\/p>\n
there is reason to fear that the activities of anti-social element<\/p>\n
cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest<\/p>\n
of such person. Object of the Act of 2002 or power given by<\/p>\n
Article 22 of the Constitution of India, the State is not only to
\n                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
                 take action against the convicts and prevented from taking<\/p>\n
                 action in case the accused has been acquitted or released on<\/p>\n
                 bail in one or even all criminal cases. The detaining authority,<\/p>\n
                 the Advisory Board and the State should satisfy itself from the<\/p>\n
                 facts that the action under the Act against the person is<\/p>\n
                 necessary. It is also understood clearly that the matter under<\/p>\n
                 the Crime Control Acts are in relation to individual’s liberty,<\/p>\n
                 which is the highest right of any person as protected by the<\/p>\n
                 Constitution of India as well as it is a matter of life of not only<\/p>\n
                 any individual but it may be matter of life of death of large<\/p>\n
                 number of persons, therefore, every case should be taken in<\/p>\n
                 passing order under such Acts.\n<\/p>\n
                 9.    Therefore, the copy of this order will be sent to the<\/p>\n
                 Home Secretary, Jharkhand, who may circulate this order to<\/p>\n
                 all authorities who have power under Section 12 (2) of the Act<\/p>\n
                 of 2002 so that no person be detained wrongly under the<\/p>\n
                 provisions of the Act of 2002 and no unwanted person be<\/p>\n
                 released because of technical mistake committed by the<\/p>\n
                 detaining authority.\n<\/p>\n
                 10.   The order of detention of the petitioner dated 25th<\/p>\n
                 March, 2011 and confirmation order of the State Government<\/p>\n
                 dated 31st March, 2011 are set aside. The petitioner is<\/p>\n
                 directed to be released forthwith, if not needed in other case.<\/p>\n
                                                             (Prakash Tatia, C J)<\/p>\n
                                                                   (P.P. Bhatt, J)<\/p>\n
Dey\/-Alankar\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court Rajendra Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 19 September, 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) (H.B.)No. 122 of 2011 Rajendra Singh … …… … … Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Secretary, Department of Home, State of Jharkhand 3.The District Magistrate, Dhanbad…. ….. […]<\/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-30440","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajendra Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 19 September, 2011 - 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\/rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajendra Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 19 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-01T17:32:59+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajendra Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 19 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-01T17:32:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1180,\"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\\\/rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Rajendra Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 19 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-01T17:32:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajendra Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 19 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajendra Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 19 September, 2011 - 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\/rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajendra Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 19 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-01T17:32:59+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajendra Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 19 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-01T17:32:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011"},"wordCount":1180,"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\/rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011","name":"Rajendra Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 19 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-01T17:32:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajendra-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-19-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajendra Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 19 September, 2011"}]},{"@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\/30440","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=30440"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30440\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30440"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30440"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}