{"id":51357,"date":"2010-04-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-2010"},"modified":"2018-05-07T15:11:21","modified_gmt":"2018-05-07T09:41:21","slug":"manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 26 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n
Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 26 April, 2010<\/div>\n
              In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi\n\n                     W.P.(Cr.) No.40 of 2010\n\n              Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Singh........................ Petitioner\n\n                     VERSUS\n\n              State of Jharkhand through Vigilance and others.....Respondents\n\n              CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD\n\n              For the Petitioner: Mr.Y.V.Giri, Sr. Advocate\n              For the Vigilance : Mr. A.K.Kashyap, Sr. Advocate\n\nReserved on 17.4.2010                                    Pronounced on 26.4.2010\n\n7. 26.4.10<\/pre>\n
.          This application has been filed for quashing of the first<\/p>\n
              information report of Vigilance P.S. Case No.23 of 2009 (Special<\/p>\n
              Case No.27 of 2009) instituted under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471,<\/p>\n
              406, 409, 420, 109\/120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under<\/p>\n
              Sections 7, 10, 13(1)(e) of the of the Prevention of Corruption Act<\/p>\n
              (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).\n<\/p>\n
                     The facts leading to filing of this case are that the Income<\/p>\n
              Tax Department laid a raid in the house of the petitioner on<\/p>\n
              15.10.2009     where      169     term    deposit    receipts      worth<\/p>\n
              Rs.12,54,23,337\/- of North Bihar Regional Gramin Bank, Murtuza<\/p>\n
              Branch, P.S. Dariapur, District-Chapra were found which were<\/p>\n
              either in the name of the petitioner or his family members.<\/p>\n
                     That apart, 42 files of the Government Department relating<\/p>\n
              to disciplinary proceeding, tender, transfer and posting were found.<\/p>\n
              The said file as well as the aforesaid term deposit receipts were<\/p>\n
              seized by the Income Tax Department.\n<\/p>\n
                     On getting such information, the Deputy Superintendent-<\/p>\n
              cum-Officer-in-Charge of Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi lodged the case<\/p>\n
              alleging therein that the petitioner being a Private Secretary of the<\/p>\n
              then Minister, Shri Chandra Prakash Choudhary did acquire asset<\/p>\n
              which is disproportionate to his known source of income and on
\n                            2<\/span><\/p>\n
that basis, Vigilance P.S case no.23 of 2009 was registered under<\/p>\n
Sections 467, 468, 469, 471, 406, 409, 420, 109\/120B of the Indian<\/p>\n
Penal    Code and also under Sections        7, 10, 13(1)(e) of the<\/p>\n
Prevention of Corruption Act.\n<\/p>\n
        The said first information report has been sought to be<\/p>\n
quashed by way of the instant writ application.<\/p>\n
        Mr. Y.V.Giri, Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner<\/p>\n
submitted that the then Minister of Drinking Water and Sanitation<\/p>\n
and     Science   and   Information   Technology,   Government      of<\/p>\n
Jharkhand, Shri Chandra Prakash Choudhary in order to avail the<\/p>\n
facility of having a Private Secretary (external quota), appointed<\/p>\n
this petitioner as Private Secretary (external quota) as it was within<\/p>\n
his competence to appoint any one on the said post which is not a<\/p>\n
Government post and such Private Secretary is not supposed to<\/p>\n
discharge any Government duty, rather Private Secretary (external<\/p>\n
quota) assists the Minister in the matter other than the public duty<\/p>\n
and that such Private Secretary (external quota) is not paid from<\/p>\n
the public exchequer, rather he is being paid from the allowances<\/p>\n
which are admissible to the Minister and in this view of the matter,<\/p>\n
the petitioner never comes within the purview of the public servant<\/p>\n
as defined in Section 2 (c) of the Act and as such, the petitioner,<\/p>\n
being not a public servant, cannot        be prosecuted under the<\/p>\n
provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act.<\/p>\n
        Learned counsel goes on further to elaborate his submission<\/p>\n
by referring to Section 2(c) (i) of the Act defining ‘public servant’<\/p>\n
that any person in the service or pay of the Government or<\/p>\n
remunerated by the Government by fees or commission for the<\/p>\n
performance of any public duty can be a public servant but the<\/p>\n
petitioner has neither been appointed by the Government nor did<\/p>\n
he receive his salary from the Government nor was paid fees or
\n                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
commission for the performance of any public duty and as such,<\/p>\n
the petitioner cannot by any stretch of imagination be held to be a<\/p>\n
public servant.\n<\/p>\n
       Learned counsel further submitted that though the petitioner<\/p>\n
received remuneration but that was never paid from the<\/p>\n
Government exchequer, rather it was being paid from the<\/p>\n
allowances given to the Minister under the provision of the ‘Bihar<\/p>\n
Ministers’ Salaries and Allowances Act, 1953′ and under this<\/p>\n
circumstance, the petitioner can never be said to have received<\/p>\n
allowance\/pay from the State Government and as such, the<\/p>\n
petitioner being not in service of the Government nor received the<\/p>\n
pay from the State Government nor had been performing any<\/p>\n
public duty, never comes within the purview of public servant as<\/p>\n
defined under Section 2 (c)(i) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
       Learned counsel in support of his submission referred to a<\/p>\n
decision rendered in the case of R.S.Nayak vs. A.R.Antylay (AIR<\/a><\/p>\n
1984 SC 684) wherein it has been held that the M.L.A, being not<\/p>\n
in Government service, never receives pay from the State<\/p>\n
Government rather he receives allowance\/pay from the grant which<\/p>\n
is charged under the Consolidated Fund of the State, and hence, it<\/p>\n
was held that the M.L.A is not a public servant within the meaning<\/p>\n
of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s case being similar to the case of the M.L.A, cannot be<\/p>\n
said to be a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c)(i) of<\/p>\n
the Act and, therefore, the prosecution under the Prevention of<\/p>\n
Corruption Act cannot be maintained and, therefore, the first<\/p>\n
information report is fit to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
       As against that, Mr. A.K.Kashyap, Sr. Counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
the Vigilance submitted that public servant as defined under<\/p>\n
Section 2(c)(i) of the Act has been divided in three categories and
\n                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
if anyone comes within any of the categories, one can be held to<\/p>\n
be a public servant and there has been no doubt about this<\/p>\n
proposition   as the same has been laid down by the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in the case of           R.S.Nayak vs. A.R.Antylay<\/a><\/p>\n
(supra) referred to on behalf of the petitioner.<\/p>\n
       In this respect, it was further submitted that though the<\/p>\n
petitioner being a Private Secretary (external quota), may not be in<\/p>\n
the service of the Government but he received his pay from the<\/p>\n
Government Department which would be evident from Annexure A<\/p>\n
disclosing therein that the petitioner being a Private Secretary to<\/p>\n
the then Minister received payment from the Department of<\/p>\n
Sanitation and Drinking Water and Science and Information<\/p>\n
Technology which fact disproves the plea of the petitioner that<\/p>\n
pay\/allowance was given to the petitioner from the allowances<\/p>\n
which the Minister received and, therefore, under this situation, the<\/p>\n
petitioner can easily be said to be a public servant in terms of<\/p>\n
Section 2 (c)(i) of the Act and, therefore, this application is fit to be<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
       In the context of the submission made on behalf of the<\/p>\n
petitioner one is required to take notice of the provision of the<\/p>\n
Prevention of Corruption Act particularly Section 2 (c) (i) of the Act<\/p>\n
defining ‘public servant’ which reads as follows:<\/p>\n
              2(c) “Public Servant” means\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (i)    Any person in the service or pay of the
\n                 Government or remunerated by the Government
\n                 by fees or commission for the performance of any
\n                 public duty;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       The expression ‘or’ used in the definition of the public<\/p>\n
servant appears to be a disjunctive and as such definition can be<\/p>\n
said to have been divided in three compartments (i) a person in the<\/p>\n
service of the Government (ii) a person in the pay of the<\/p>\n
Government and (iii) a person remunerated by fees or commission
\n                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
for the performance of any public duty by the Government. This<\/p>\n
proposition was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the<\/p>\n
case of R.S.Nayak vs. A.R.Antulay<\/a> (supra) while taking note of<\/p>\n
clause 12(a) of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code which is in<\/p>\n
para materia of the provision as contained in Section 2(c)(i) of the<\/p>\n
Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while holding that a person can be<\/p>\n
a public servant if he falls in any one of the categories has also<\/p>\n
observed that one can be in the service of the Government and<\/p>\n
may be paid for the same and that one can be in the pay of the<\/p>\n
Government without being in the service of the Government in the<\/p>\n
sense of manifesting master-servant or          command-obedience<\/p>\n
relationship.\n<\/p>\n
       Thus, there has been no doubt that a person without being<\/p>\n
in service of the Government if receives pay from the Government,<\/p>\n
he is very much a public servant in terms of the definition as given<\/p>\n
under Section 2 (c)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act .<\/p>\n
       Admittedly, the petitioner is not in the service of the<\/p>\n
Government but according to leaned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
vigilance, he while holding post of Private Secretary (external<\/p>\n
quota) to the Minister of Drinking Water and Sanitation drew pay<\/p>\n
from the Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation but stand of<\/p>\n
the petitioner is that the petitioner being a Private Secretary<\/p>\n
(external quota) drew his salary from the allowances made to the<\/p>\n
Minister and as such, petitioner can never be said that he is in the<\/p>\n
pay of the Government of the State as in the case of M.L.A. It is<\/p>\n
true that in a case of   R.S.Nayak vs. A.R.Antulay<\/a> (supra), M.L.A<\/p>\n
was held to be not a public servant within the meaning of Section<\/p>\n
21 of the Indian Penal Code on the premise that the M.L.A draws<\/p>\n
his allowance from the grant which is charged from the<\/p>\n
Consolidated Fund of the State and as such, M.LA is not in the pay
\n                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
      of the Government of the State but here as has been shown by Mr.<\/p>\n
      Kashyap by producing a document (Annexure A) that the petitioner<\/p>\n
      drew pay from the Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation<\/p>\n
      and as such, at this stage, the plea       of the petitioner that the<\/p>\n
      petitioner did draw his salary from the allowance of the Minister<\/p>\n
      cannot be accepted, rather the petitioner in view of the statement<\/p>\n
      made by the Vigilance regarding pay being drawn from the<\/p>\n
      Government Department can be said to be in the pay of the<\/p>\n
      Government      and as such, the petitioner, prima facie, will be<\/p>\n
      coming within the definition of public servant as defined in Section<\/p>\n
      2(c)(i) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
             Once it has been found, prima facie, that the petitioner is a<\/p>\n
      public servant, the prosecution under the Act can easily be<\/p>\n
      maintained and, therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ<\/p>\n
      application and hence, it is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
             However, before parting with this order, it goes without<\/p>\n
      saying that any observation made for the purpose of disposal of<\/p>\n
      this case would not be prejudicial to the right of the parties.<\/p>\n
                                                ( R.R.Prasad, J.)<\/p>\n
ND\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 26 April, 2010 In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi W.P.(Cr.) No.40 of 2010 Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Singh…………………… Petitioner VERSUS State of Jharkhand through Vigilance and others…..Respondents CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioner: Mr.Y.V.Giri, Sr. […]<\/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-51357","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nManoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 26 April, 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\/manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 26 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-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=\"2010-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-07T09:41:21+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\/manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 26 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-07T09:41:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1692,\"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\/manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 26 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-07T09:41:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 26 April, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 26 April, 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\/manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 26 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-07T09:41:21+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\/manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 26 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-07T09:41:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-2010"},"wordCount":1692,"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\/manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-2010","name":"Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 26 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-07T09:41:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-manoj-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-26-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 26 April, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/51357","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=51357"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51357\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51357"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51357"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51357"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}