{"id":81289,"date":"2009-09-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009"},"modified":"2015-07-05T06:54:58","modified_gmt":"2015-07-05T01:24:58","slug":"prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Prabhunath Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 5 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n
Prabhunath Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 5 September, 2009<\/div>\n
            In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi\n\n                  Cr. M. P. No.143 of 2004\n\n            Prabhunath Singh ................................ .Petitioner\n\n                  VERSUS\n\n            State of Jharkhand and another....Opposite Parties\n\n            CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD\n\n            For the Petitioner : M\/s.Abhoy Kumar Singh and Nilesh Kumar\n            For the State       :A.P.P\n            For the Opposite party no.2: Mr.K.P.Choudhary\n\nReserved on 22.5.2009                                Pronounced on 5 .9.2009\n\n28.   5.9.09<\/pre>\n
.     This application was initially filed for quashing the charge<\/p>\n
            sheet no.83 of 1996 dated 21.6.1996 submitted in connection with<\/p>\n
            Mashrakh    P.S.   case   no.110    of   1991,    corresponding      to<\/p>\n
            supplementary U.T.No.62 of 1998, pending before the Chief<\/p>\n
            Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh whereby the petitioner was sent up<\/p>\n
            for trial for offences under section 364, 302, 201 and 120B of the<\/p>\n
            Indian penal Code. Subsequently, by way of amendment petition,<\/p>\n
            entire criminal proceeding of Mashrakh P.S. case no.110 of 1991<\/p>\n
            has been sought to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
                  The facts giving rise this application are that on 23.6.1991<\/p>\n
            the informant Awadh Kumar Singh proceeded to village Dhanauti<\/p>\n
            along with Manokamana Singh        (the deceased) to bring one Jai<\/p>\n
            Prakash, the servant of Ashok Singh. When they met with Jai<\/p>\n
            Prakash, they asked him to go on his bi-cycle           whereas the<\/p>\n
            informant Awadh Kumar Singh along with Manokamana Singh (the<\/p>\n
            deceased) proceeded on a motor cycle. When they reached near<\/p>\n
            Dhanauti bridge, they came across with the accused Dina Singh,<\/p>\n
            Nageshwar Singh, Pankaj Singh, Ajay Singh @ Engineer and Om<\/p>\n
            Prakash Singh who had come over there on their motor cycles and<\/p>\n
            some of them were having rifles with them. The accused persons<\/p>\n
            having over powered them made Manokamana Singh to sit forcibly
\n                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
in the motor cycle of Dina Singh and then they proceeded towards<\/p>\n
Mashrakh. In the way some members of a Barat party saw accused<\/p>\n
persons taking Manokamana Singh.       Thereafter   Awadh Kumar<\/p>\n
Singh lodged a case which was instituted as Mashrakh P.S. case<\/p>\n
no.110 of 1991 under sections 363 and 364 of the Indian Penal<\/p>\n
Code. Subsequently when Manokamana Singh was found dead,<\/p>\n
section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added in the first<\/p>\n
information report. Thereafter the case was taken up for<\/p>\n
investigation.   The Investigating Officer submitted first charge<\/p>\n
sheet no.71 of 1991 on 20.9.1991 against Om Prakash Singh only<\/p>\n
and the investigation was kept open for rest of the accused<\/p>\n
persons. After some time second charge sheet, bearing no.8 of<\/p>\n
1992 was submitted on 7.9.1992 against the accused Dina Nath<\/p>\n
Singh and Nageshwar Singh. Subsequently, investigation of the<\/p>\n
case was taken over by the CID, who submitted charge sheet,<\/p>\n
bearing no.83 of 1996 on 21.5.1996 against the petitioner and one<\/p>\n
Ajay Singh under sections 302, 201 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal<\/p>\n
Code. Thereafter under the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,<\/p>\n
the case was transferred from Bihar to Jharkhand at Hazaribagh,<\/p>\n
which was registered as T.R.No.509 of 2003 and when the case<\/p>\n
was committed to the court of sessions, it was registered as<\/p>\n
Sessions Trial No.22 of 2004 but as the petitioner was shown<\/p>\n
absconder, his case was separated and was numbered as<\/p>\n
T.R.No.381 of 2004 and warrant of arrest was issued.<\/p>\n
       However, when the charge sheet was submitted against this<\/p>\n
petitioner, the petitioner moved this Court for quashing of the<\/p>\n
charge sheet.\n<\/p>\n
       Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that<\/p>\n
the case was registered in the year 1991 against the named<\/p>\n
accused persons against whom charge sheets were submitted in
\n                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
two phases but the name of the petitioner never figured in those<\/p>\n
charge sheets. However, when the investigation was taken over by<\/p>\n
the CID, charge sheet was submitted under the influence of the<\/p>\n
ruling party against the petitioner, who at the relevant point of time<\/p>\n
was a member of legislative assembly, though there was absolutely<\/p>\n
no material showing legal evidence of the involvement of the<\/p>\n
petitioner in the alleged offence.\n<\/p>\n
       Learned counsel in this respect further submitted that the<\/p>\n
only material which was collected by the investigating agency is<\/p>\n
that the car which was used in the commission of the            alleged<\/p>\n
offence belonged to the petitioner and that the motor cycle used<\/p>\n
was having registration number as that of the motor cycle<\/p>\n
belonging to the petitioner and that when one of the witnesses<\/p>\n
came to the house of the petitioner, he saw the accused persons<\/p>\n
present over there and saw blood mark over the shirt of one of the<\/p>\n
co-accused. Only on these materials which were never sufficient to<\/p>\n
show the culpability of the petitioner, charge sheet was submitted.<\/p>\n
Therefore, under this circumstance, the entire criminal proceeding<\/p>\n
is fit to be quashed so far the petitioner is concerned.<\/p>\n
       Learned counsel further submitted that subsequent to filing<\/p>\n
of this application, a development having much bearing on this<\/p>\n
case, took place whereby all the four named accused persons, who<\/p>\n
had been put on trial in Sessions Trial No.22 of 2004 have been<\/p>\n
acquitted by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh and as<\/p>\n
such, the petitioner who has been sought to be tried with the aid of<\/p>\n
section 120(B) cannot be held guilty for the alleged offence.<\/p>\n
       Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to<\/p>\n
a decision rendered in a case of Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish<\/p>\n
Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra[(2008) 10 SCC 394].
\n                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
         In the aforesaid circumstances, it was submitted that when<\/p>\n
there has been no sufficient material showing involvement of the<\/p>\n
petitioner in the alleged offence nor the petitioner could be found<\/p>\n
guilty for the offence of conspiracy, in view of the fact that other<\/p>\n
accused persons have already been acquitted, there would be<\/p>\n
abuse of the process of law, if the petitioner is relegated to face<\/p>\n
the trial and hence, the entire criminal proceeding is fit to be set<\/p>\n
aside.\n<\/p>\n
         As against this, learned counsel appearing for the informant<\/p>\n
submitted that in course of investigation, motor cycle as well as car<\/p>\n
used in the commission of crime has been found to have belonged<\/p>\n
to this petitioner, in whose house the other accused, who was<\/p>\n
related to the petitioner was found present just after the<\/p>\n
occurrence and hence, the petitioner’s involvement of hatching<\/p>\n
conspiracy in the commission of offence cannot be ruled out and<\/p>\n
under this circumstance, the court would be very loath in quashing<\/p>\n
the entire criminal proceeding so far this petitioner is concerned.<\/p>\n
         Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and<\/p>\n
on perusal of the record, I do find that admittedly there has been<\/p>\n
no whisper about the involvement of the petitioner in the first<\/p>\n
information report and that after the investigation, when two<\/p>\n
charge sheets were placed before the court against the named<\/p>\n
accused persons, petitioner’s name never figured in those charge<\/p>\n
sheets. However, when the investigation was taken over by the<\/p>\n
CID, it submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and one other<\/p>\n
accused person under sections 302, 201 and 120(B) of the Indian<\/p>\n
Penal Code after lapse of five years from the date of occurrence for<\/p>\n
the reason that in course of investigation, it transpired that the<\/p>\n
motor cycle as well as car used in the commission of the crime,<\/p>\n
belonged to this petitioner and that when one of the witnesses
\n                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
came to the house of this petitioner just after the occurrence, she<\/p>\n
found that the accused persons present over there and one of the<\/p>\n
accused was having blood mark on his shirt.\n<\/p>\n
       I am afraid in absence of any other circumstances<\/p>\n
whatsoever whether these materials would be sufficient to hold the<\/p>\n
petitioner guilty. At this stage, it would be apt to refer to a case of<\/p>\n
R.P.Kapur vs. State of Punjab (AIR<\/a> 1960 SC 866) whereby<\/p>\n
the Hon’ble Supreme Court summarized some categories of cases<\/p>\n
which are fit to be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its<\/p>\n
inherent power. They are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
              (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal
\n              bar against the institution or continuance e.g, want of
\n              sanction;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (ii) where the allegations in the first information
\n              report or complaint taken at its face value and
\n              accepted in their entirely do not constitute the
\n              offence alleged;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but
\n              there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence
\n              adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the
\n              charge.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       The circumstances, which are sought to be used against<\/p>\n
the petitioner even if are taken to be true, it would hardly prove<\/p>\n
the charge particularly when other named accused persons with<\/p>\n
whom the petitioner is said to have hatched criminal conspiracy for<\/p>\n
committing the offence of murder has been acquitted.<\/p>\n
       At this stage, one needs to take notice of the essential<\/p>\n
features of the offence of conspiracy as enshrined under section<\/p>\n
120 A of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
              “120-A Definition of criminal conspiracy – When two
\n              or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done –
\n              (1) an illegal act, or
\n              (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such
\n              an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
\n              Provided that no agreement except an agreement to
\n              commit an offence shall amount to a criminal
\n              conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is
\n              done by one or more parties to such agreement in
\n              pursuance thereof.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
             Explanation – It is immaterial whether the illegal act
\n             is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely
\n             incidental to that object”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Thus, it is manifest that the meeting of minds of two or<\/p>\n
more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is<\/p>\n
sine qua non of criminal conspiracy.\n<\/p>\n
      Since other named accused persons with whom the<\/p>\n
petitioner is said to have hatched conspiracy for committing offence<\/p>\n
has already been acquitted, sufficient ground be hardly there to<\/p>\n
proceed against the petitioner with an aid of section 120B of the<\/p>\n
Indian Penal Code. Therefore, any continuance of the proceeding<\/p>\n
would amount to abuse of the process of law.\n<\/p>\n
      Having come to such conclusion still the question would be<\/p>\n
as to whether the court in exercise of jurisdiction under section 482<\/p>\n
of the Code of Criminal Procedure would go into the matter of<\/p>\n
sufficiency or insufficiency of the materials or to relegate to the<\/p>\n
petitioner to stage where he can plead for his discharge on account<\/p>\n
of insufficiency of the material. This question has been answered<\/p>\n
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in a case of Ashok<\/p>\n
Chaturvedi and others vs. Shitul H. Chanchani and another<\/p>\n
[(1998) 7 SCC 698]        holding therein that merely because the<\/p>\n
accused has right to plead at the time of framing of charges that<\/p>\n
there is no material for framing of charges he is not debarred from<\/p>\n
invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the court at the earliest point<\/p>\n
of time when the Magistrate has taken cognizance.<\/p>\n
      Earlier also the Hon’ble Supreme Court had expressed the<\/p>\n
same view in a case of State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy<\/p>\n
and others<\/a> [(1977) 2 SCC 699].\n<\/p>\n
      Thus, in the facts and circumstances as stated above, when<\/p>\n
no sufficient ground is there to proceed against the petitioner,<\/p>\n
there would be abuse of the process of law, if the petitioner is
\n                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
      allowed to face rigour of the trial and hence, the entire criminal<\/p>\n
      proceeding of Mashrakh P.S. case no.110 of 1991, corresponding to<\/p>\n
      supplementary U.T no.62 of 1998, pending in the court of Chief<\/p>\n
      Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh is hereby quashed.<\/p>\n
            In the result, this application is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ( R. R. Prasad, J. )<\/p>\n
ND\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court Prabhunath Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 5 September, 2009 In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr. M. P. No.143 of 2004 Prabhunath Singh ………………………….. .Petitioner VERSUS State of Jharkhand and another….Opposite Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioner : M\/s.Abhoy Kumar Singh and Nilesh Kumar For the […]<\/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-81289","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPrabhunath Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 5 September, 2009 - 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\/prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prabhunath Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 5 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-05T01:24:58+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\\\/prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prabhunath Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 5 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-05T01:24:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1814,\"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\\\/prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Prabhunath Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 5 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-05T01:24:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prabhunath Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 5 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Prabhunath Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 5 September, 2009 - 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\/prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prabhunath Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 5 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-05T01:24:58+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\/prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prabhunath Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 5 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-05T01:24:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009"},"wordCount":1814,"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\/prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009","name":"Prabhunath Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 5 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-05T01:24:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhunath-singh-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-5-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prabhunath Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 5 September, 2009"}]},{"@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\/81289","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=81289"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81289\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81289"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81289"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81289"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}