2026:JHHC:23876

Page 1 of 18

Cr. Revision Nos.1465 of 2016 & 23 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Revision No. 1465 of 2016

---------

Sanjay Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar, Son of Late Shiv Lal Prasad, resident of

Bari Badalpur, P.O. and P.S.-Khagaul (Danapur), District-Patna, Bihar

……Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Sushma Devi, wife of Sri Sanjay Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar, resident of Qr.

No.204/2/7, Chhota Govindpur, P.O. and P.S.-Govindpur, Town

Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum

…. Opp.Parties

With

Cr. Revision No. 23 of 2017

---------

Sushma Devi, W/o-Sri Sanjay Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar, Resident of Qr.

No.204//2/7, Chhota Govindpur, P.O. and P.S.-Govindpur, Town

Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum

… … Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Sanjay Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar, S/o-Late Shivlal Prasad

3. Asha Devi, W/o-Binod Paswan

5. Binod Paswan, S/o-Shri Keshav Prasad, both resident of 27, Shapur,

Sampatchak P.O. & P.S.-Sampatckok, District-Patna

…. Opp.Parties

----------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Salona Mittal, Amicus Curiae

[In Cr. Rev. No.1465 of 2016]

Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate

[In Cr. Rev. No.23 of 2017]

For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P.

[In Cr. Rev. No.1465 of 2016]

Mr. Arup Dey, A.P.P.

[In Cr. Rev. No.23 of 2017]

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate

Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate

[In Cr. Rev. No.1465 of 2016]

---------

2026:JHHC:23876

Page 2 of 18

Cr. Revision Nos.1465 of 2016 & 23 of 2017

PRESENT

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

ORDERS

-----------

CAV On 01/07/2026 Pronounced on 11/08/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Both the above criminal revisions are arising out of common order,

hence are being heard together and disposed of by common order.

3. It has been informed that the opposite party No.3, Ram Sakhi Devi in

Cr. Revision No.23 of 2017 has died during pendency of this revision.

This revision, therefore, stands abated so far as opposite party No.3 is

concerned. The names of above surviving opposite parties of Cr.

Revision No.23 of 2017, namely, Sanjay Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar, Asha

Devi and Binod Paswan have been renumbered and the revision is heard

on behalf of the aforesaid alive opposite parties.

4. In both the revisions, the petitioners have challenged the legality,

propriety and correctness of the conviction and sentence passed by

learned Judicial Magistrate, 1

st

Class, Jamshedpur dated 17.08.2011 in

C/1 Case No.207 of 2008, wherein the petitioner of Cr. Revision

No.1465 of 2016 and opposite party Nos.2-5 in Cr. Revision No.23 of

2017 were held guilty for the offence under section 498A of IPC and

sections 3/4 of D.P. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years along

with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under section 498A of IPC

and R.I. for 2 years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence

2026:JHHC:23876

Page 3 of 18

Cr. Revision Nos.1465 of 2016 & 23 of 2017

under sections 3/4 of D.P. Act with default stipulation. Both the

sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The convicts preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions

Judge vide Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2011, which was heard and

decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur vide

judgment dated 31.08.2016, whereby and whereunder the conviction

and sentence of the appellant(petitioner) in Cr. Revision No.1465 of

2016 for the offence under section 498A of IPC was set aside and

conviction and sentence for the offence under sections 3/4 of D.P. Act

was upheld and confirmed. Other co-convicts/O.P. Nos.2 to 5 in Cr.

Rev. No.23 of 2017 was acquitted from both the charges extending the

benefit of doubts.

Instant criminal revision i.e. Cr. Revision No.1465 of 2016 is

directed against the judgment dated 31.08.2016 passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No.159 of

2011, whereby and whereunder the petitioner(appellant) was acquitted

from the offence under section 498A of IPC but conviction and sentence

for the offence under section 3/4 of D.P. Act was upheld and confirmed.

5. Criminal Revision No.23 of 2017 has been filed by the complainant-

cum-victim challenging the acquittal of co-convicts, namely, Ram Sakhi

Devi (now deceased), Asha Devi and Binod Paswan under sectoni 498A

of IPC and Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act and acquittal of Sanjay Kumar

under section 498A of IPC by the learned appellate court.

2026:JHHC:23876

Page 4 of 18

Cr. Revision Nos.1465 of 2016 & 23 of 2017

Factual Matrix:-

6. Factual matrix giving rise to these revisions is that the complainant,

Sushma Devi is well educated having M.A. degree and was married

with Sanjay Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar on 12.03.2007 as per Hindu Rites

and Customs. It is further alleged that prior to marriage, a ring

ceremony (engagement) was organized at Jamshedpur. It is further

alleged that as per demand of the accused persons, the father of the

complainant, at the time of ring ceremony, presented Rs.2.50 lakhs to

her husband and other co-accused persons, out of which Rs.50,000/- in

cash and the remaining amount through two separate bank drafts of Rs.1

lakh each bearing Nos. 117593 and 117594 of SBI Chota Govindpur

Branch. Apart from the above cash, jewelry both silver and gold as well

as household articles and electronic items like refrigerator, washing

machine, VCD, T.V., mixing grinder etc. worth Rs.3 lakhs were also

presented. It is further alleged that at the time of reception and offering

other religious rituals during marriage, huge amount was also incurred.

After marriage, the complainant went to her matrimonial home but after

few days staying at her matrimonial home, her husband and all the

accused persons started showing their dissatisfaction about the cash and

gifts presented at the time of marriage. Her husband also openly

declared that he does not like the complainant taunting her for her black

complexion. The husband and other in-laws also started demanding

Rs.2 lakhs as additional dowry to bring from her father. The father of

2026:JHHC:23876

Page 5 of 18

Cr. Revision Nos.1465 of 2016 & 23 of 2017

the complainant as well as his relatives came to the matrimonial house

of the complainant to settle the matter amicably but her husband and

sister-in-law, Asha Devi openly demanded Rs.2 lakhs as dowry, to

which the father of the complainant expressed his inability to fulfill

rather he gave Rs.50,000/- cash to the accused No.2, Ram Sakhi Devi

(mother-in-law) but her father could not pay the rest amount of Rs.1.50

lakhs. Thereafter, the complainant was subjected to cruelty in various

ways by supplying insufficient food and her other necessary

requirements were stopped and the aforesaid situation reached at its

extreme. On 15.04.2007, in the mid-night, the complainant was brutally

assaulted by her husband, sister-in-law (nanad) Asha Devi and brother-

in-law (nandoshi) Binod Paswan and the complainant was driven out

from the matrimonial home. Hence, she took shelter at her parental

house at Jamshedpur. It is further alleged that on the occasion of

Dushara in the year, 2007, her husband and sister-in-law, Asha Devi and

Binod Paswan (nandoshi) came to Jamshedpur and in presence of her

parents, she was assaulted by her husband. It is further alleged that after

several attempts made by her father and due to social pressure, the

accused persons brought the complainant from Jamshedpur to her

matrimonial home on 21.11.2007 with undertaking and assurance that

they will not engage in scuffle, dispute or torture against the

complainant in future but the accused persons continued physical

assault and torture with the complainant and also conspired to take her

2026:JHHC:23876

Page 6 of 18

Cr. Revision Nos.1465 of 2016 & 23 of 2017

life. Thereafter, the father of the complainant came to her matrimonial

home and brought her back to Jamshedpur. It is further alleged that

again the complainant’s father with a view to settle the dispute with the

accused persons took a house on rent at Govindpur owned by one

Shambhu Sharan Sharma on his own expenses for the purpose to reside

both parties together and she also started residing with her husband but

within two weeks, the complainant was again subjected to cruelty both

physically and mental by her husband due to non-fulfillment of the rest

of amount of Rs.1.50 lakhs and assaulted her on 03.01.2008 and went

away with bag and baggage. It is also alleged that all the articles

presented at the time of marriage have also been detained by the

accused persons at her matrimonial home.

7. After conducting inquiry, the accused persons were summoned and

appeared.

8. The acquisition of charges were read over and explained to the accused

persons to which, they claimed to be tried.

9. In course of trial, no documentary evidence has been adduced by the

prosecution. However, altogether 5 witnesses were examined by the

prosecution, namely:-

C.W.1-Sushma Devi (complainant)

C.W.2-Dinanath Paswan

C.W.3-Shambhu Sharan Sharma

C.W.4- Rajesh Kumar

C.W.5-Janardan Singh

2026:JHHC:23876

Page 7 of 18

Cr. Revision Nos.1465 of 2016 & 23 of 2017

10. On the other hand, no oral evidence has been adduced by the defence.

However, two documentary evidence i.e. Ext.A-Voter Card of Binod

Ram and Ext.A/1- Voter card of Asha Devi were adduced by the

defence.

11. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication

due to marital dispute.

12. Learned trial court after scrutinizing the evidence convicted all the

accused persons for the offence under section 498A of IPC and Sections

3/4 of D.P. Act as stated above.

13. Learned appellate court acquitted other three co-convicts, namely, Ram

Sakhi Devi (now deceased), Asha Devi and Binod Paswan from both

the charges i.e. under section 498A of IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act

and convicted and sentenced only to the present petitioner(husband) of

Cr. Revision No.1465 of 2016 for the offence under sections 3/4 of D.P.

Act and also acquitted him from the charge under section 498A of IPC.

Submission on behalf of petitioner:-

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr. Revision No.1465 of 2016

assailing the impugned judgment passed by learned appellate court has

submitted that although the learned appellate court has acquitted the

petitioner from the charge under section 498A of IPC but wrongly held

him guilty for the offence under sections 3/4 of D.P. Act without any

evidence. No inventory or list as required under law has been prepared

at the time of marriage and subsequent demand of Rs.2 lakhs is only a

2026:JHHC:23876

Page 8 of 18

Cr. Revision Nos.1465 of 2016 & 23 of 2017

bald allegation. In the complaint petition itself, it is mentioned that out

of additional demand of Rs.2 lakhs cash, Rs.50,000/- cash was paid to

the mother-in-law of the complainant but contrary to this, learned

appellate court has found that Rs.50,000/- was paid and received by the

present petitioner without any cogent and reliable evidence, which is the

basis for upholding the conviction under sections 3/4 of D.P. Act

against the present petitioner. Learned appellate court has failed to

consider the material contradictions and discrepancies in regard of

demand of additional dowry and its payment and mode of payment to

whom it was paid, has wrongly observed that Rs.50,000/- cash was paid

to the present petitioner. Therefore, learned appellate court has

committed serious illegality and arrived at erroneous findings, which is

fit to be set aside and this revision may be allowed.

15. On the other hand, criminal revision No.23 of 2017 has been filed by

the complainant challenging the acquittal of all accused persons, who

were held guilty and sentenced by the learned trial court. It is submitted

by learned counsel for the complainant that learned appellate court has

committed serious illegality while acquitting the main accused (husband

of the complainant) from the charge under section 498A of IPC on

flimsy grounds and his own imagination without appreciating the

evidence properly, discussed by the learned trial court and without

meting out the reasons, which was recorded by learned trial court while

convicting the accused persons including the husband for the offence

2026:JHHC:23876

Page 9 of 18

Cr. Revision Nos.1465 of 2016 & 23 of 2017

under section 498A of IPC and sections 3/4 of D.P. Act. Therefore,

judgment passed by learned appellate court is absolutely illegal,

improper and based upon the conjecture and surmises, which is fit to be

set aside and the judgment passed by learned trial court may be restored

against the accused persons. Accordingly, revision filed by the

petitioner, Sanjay Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar is liable to be dismissed and

the revision preferred by the complainant is fit to be allowed.

Submission on behalf of State:-

16. On other hand, learned counsel for the State has controverted the

aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners in both revision

petitions and submitted that there is no legal substance in the argument

raised on behalf of both the petitioners and no merits in these revisions.

Learned appellate court has very wisely and aptly apprised and

appreciated the prosecution evidence and arrived at right conclusion

about the guilt of the accused/petitioner. Hence, there is no reasonable

ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. These revisions have

no merits and are fit to be dismissed.

Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-

17. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned

judgment passed by learned trial court as well as learned appellate court

in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side.

18. The only point for determination in these revisions is that “as to

whether the impugned judgment passed by learned appellate court

2026:JHHC:23876

Page 10 of 18

Cr. Revision Nos.1465 of 2016 & 23 of 2017

in Cr. Appeal No.159 of 2013 suffers from illegality or infirmity

calling for any interference in these revisions?”

19. The question involved in these revisions pertains to conviction by

learned trial court and acquittal of some accused persons by learned

appellate court and partially conviction of the petitioner (husband) alone

for the offence under sections 3/4 of D.P. Act. Therefore, a brief resume

of oral testimony of witnesses appears to be necessary.

C.W.1. Sushma Devi is the complainant-cum-Victim of the

alleged offence. According to her evidence, she was married with

Sanjay Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar on 12.03.2007 as per Hindu Rites and

Customs and at the time of marriage, her father has given two separate

demand drafts of Rs.1 lakh each and Rs.50,000/- cash to the accused

persons and apart from which, other electronic items, jewelry and

household articles worth Rs.3 lakhs were also presented. This witness

further states that she went to her matrimonial home along with her

aforesaid gift items, where she lived only for a week quite well.

Thereafter, her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law started

harassing and assaulting saying that she does not have a fair complexion

and they also raised additional demand of Rs.2 lakhs as dowry. She

informed to her father about the above incident, then her father along

with other relatives arrived at her matrimonial home but the accused

persons again raised above demand before him, to which he showed his

inability to fulfill. Nevertheless, her father gave Rs.50,000/- cash to the

2026:JHHC:23876

Page 11 of 18

Cr. Revision Nos.1465 of 2016 & 23 of 2017

accused persons but she was again being assaulted by her husband and

other accused persons. On 15.04.2007, after giving physical assault to

her by the accused persons, she was driven out from the matrimonial

home, then she went to the house of her relative, thereafter to

Jamshedpur. All the gifted articles presented at the time of marriage

were snatched by the accused persons. She further states that her father

conveyed a panchyati ,thereafter some good sense prevailed and on

21.11.2007, she further went to her matrimonial home but the accused

persons again started demanding the rest amount of Rs.1.50 lakhs and

due to non-fulfillment of which, she was being assaulted and tortured,

thereafter she returned at her parental home on 06.12.2007. On

21.12.2007, her husband along with other co-accused persons came to

Jamshedpur and his father booked a rented house and gave to her

husband for residing wherein she was also subjected to physical assault

by the accused persons reiterating their demand. Ultimately on

03.01.2008, the accused persons went away with bag and baggage

assaulting this witness. Therefore, she was constrained to lodge this

complaint case.

In her cross-examination, this witness admits that she has an

MA in political science. She further admits that she was married with

the accused, Rajesh Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar but her sister-in-law was

already married long-long ago prior to her marriage and her sister-in-

law is blessed with four children and her eldest daughter is about 15-16

2026:JHHC:23876

Page 12 of 18

Cr. Revision Nos.1465 of 2016 & 23 of 2017

years old. She does not know about the matrimonial house of her sister-

in-law. She further admits that her father had come to her matrimonial

home on 01.04.2007 and Rs.50,000/- cash was given to her husband in

presence of her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and nandoshi. This fact is

also mentioned in the complaint petition. She further admits that on

15.04.2007, after being assaulted, she came to her relative i.e. uncle and

also went to police station, but she was advised to conciliate the matter

with the accused persons, then she returned back to her parental home

with her uncle. She further reiterates that her husband and other accused

persons were frequently assaulting her, therefore she became ill and also

got treatment at the instance of accused persons. Since, 06.12.2007, she

has been residing at her parental home. She also admits that on

21.12.2007, her husband and other accused persons came to Jamshedpur

and on 02.01.2008 in the mid-night, she was assaulted by them but she

did not report the said occurrence at the police station. She has denied

the suggestion that her husband has lodged a case under Section 9 of

Restitution of Conjugal Rights and after receiving notice, she lodged

this false case. She has also denied the suggestion of the defence that

she wants to reside at her parental home along with her husband as

gharjamai, which is not accepted by him, hence, she lodged this false

case.

C.W.2-Dinanath Paswan is father of the complainant. He

has also corroborated the case of the complainant regarding dowry and

2026:JHHC:23876

Page 13 of 18

Cr. Revision Nos.1465 of 2016 & 23 of 2017

articles presented at the time of marriage including Rs.2.50 lakhs

through cash and bank drafts. Just after one week of marriage, he

received information from his daughter that her husband and other

accused persons were harassing and abusing her and demanding Rs.2

lakhs as additional dowry. He has further stated that no direct demand

has been made by any of the accused persons. Although, he admits that

anyhow he has paid Rs.50,000/- cash but who among the accused

persons has received the said cash amount is not mentioned in his

evidence. He admits that on 15.04.2007, his daughter returned to

Jamshedpur and on the occasion of Dushara, 2007, her husband, sister-

in-law and nandoshi also arrived at Jamshedpur and started demanding

Rs.1.50 lakhs and after scuffling with his daughter, they went away. On

20.11.2007, he again sent his daughter to her matrimonial home. He

also tried to settle his son-in-law at Jamshedpur taking a house on rent

but he did not stayed there.

In his cross-examination, he admits that on 01.04.2007, he

along with his brother went to matrimonial home of his daughter where

he gave Rs.50,000/- cash to the accused persons. His daughter is

residing with him since 06.12.2007. He further admits that his son-in-

law is engaged in supply of electronic goods and he also attempted to

settle his son-in-law in Jamshedpur. He has denied the suggestion of

defence that he wants to settle his son-in-law at Jamshedpur because his

daughter does not want to live at matrimonial home. Therefore, this

2026:JHHC:23876

Page 14 of 18

Cr. Revision Nos.1465 of 2016 & 23 of 2017

false case has been lodged. He also admits that his son-in-law has filed a

case under section 9 of Restitution of Conjugal Rights and also filed a

divorce case and his daughter has also filed a maintenance case, which

is pending.

C.W.3-Shambhu Sharan Sharma is a land lord and his

house was taken on rent by the father of the complainant for residential

purpose of his daughter and son-in-law. According to his evidence,

Sushma Devi and Sanjay Kumar lived as a tenant in his house since

December, 2007 and the rent was being paid by Dinanath Paswan

(C.W.2). He has also stated that for a few days, Sushma Devi peacefully

resided with the accused persons but a demand of Rs.1.50 lakhs was

again made by the accused persons in his presence and Sushma Devi

was assaulted by her husband and other accused persons. Thereafter, in

month of January, 2008, all the accused persons went away. He has also

reiterated the aforesaid facts.

C.W.4-Rajesh Kumar has also stated that after dispute and

scuffle regarding demand of dowry by the accused persons, he along

with father of the complainant went to the house of the accused persons

for pacifying the matter and in his presence also, Shusma Devi was

assaulted by her husband, mother-in-law and nandoshi.

In his cross-examination, this witness admits that he is uncle

of the complainant and he also went to police station for giving

2026:JHHC:23876

Page 15 of 18

Cr. Revision Nos.1465 of 2016 & 23 of 2017

information about the above incident but he was advised to settle the

dispute amicably.

In his further cross-examination, he reiterates that on

06.12.2007, the complainant, Sushma Devi was assaulted by the

accused persons in his presence at her matrimonial home.

C.W.5-Janaradan Singh is a hearsay witness about the

factual aspect of the case from the father of the complainant.

20. It appears from perusal of the judgment of trial court and also in view of

the evidence of the witnesses examined in this case, it is crystal clear

that after marriage of the complainant, she went to her matrimonial

home but she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty at the hands

of the accused persons due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of

Rs.2 lakhs as dowry. It further appears that insistence of the learned

appellate court upon lodging any case in respect of assault and torture

earlier meted with the complainant or any documentary evidence of

injury, is absolutely absurd and unwarranted in the facts and

circumstances of the case. The complainant is a highly educated lady

and she has stated with date of all the chronological events and the

circumstances, wherein she was ill-treated and tortured at the hands of

her husband. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned appellate

court appear to be beyond weight of evidence and unwarranted

insistence upon lodging of previous case at the police station. In

matrimonial dispute, it is always seen that the parents and other relatives

2026:JHHC:23876

Page 16 of 18

Cr. Revision Nos.1465 of 2016 & 23 of 2017

seek amicable settlement and resolution of the dispute instead of prompt

institution of the case.

21. In the instant case, the father and uncle of the complainant have

specifically proved that the complainant was assaulted by her husband

in their presence due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry.

The petitioner has already been held guilty for the offence under

sections 3/4 of D.P. Act. Therefore, his acquittal for the offence under

section 498A of IPC in spite of clinching evidence available on record

as discussed by the learned trial court apparently suffers from serious

error of law and non-consideration of evidence properly rather based on

conjecture and surmises.

22. So far, Criminal Revision No.23 of 2017 preferred by the complainant

against the acquittal of accused, Sanjay Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar, Ram

Sakhi Devi (now deceased), Asha Devi(nanad) and Binod

Paswan(nandoshi) is concerned, it is admitted fact that the mother-in-

law of the complainant has already died and her sister-in-law, Asha

Devi and nandoshi, Binod Paswan do not reside with the husband of the

complainant. It is also admitted fact that since long-long ago, Asha Devi

was married and at the time of alleged occurrence, her elder daughter

was aged about 15 years. The complainant and other witnesses

examined on her behalf have not been able to give satisfactory evidence

as to what is the employment of nandoshi, Binod Paswan and where

the nanad of the complainant, Asha Devi resides and also about their

2026:JHHC:23876

Page 17 of 18

Cr. Revision Nos.1465 of 2016 & 23 of 2017

native place. Therefore, they appeared to have been roped in this case

merely being relative of the husband of the complainant and there is no

occasion for sister-in-law and her husband to ask any dowry from the

complainant and there is no evidence at all that anything was paid to

them as part of the dowry or they have been involved in assaulting the

complainant or torturing her with cruelty. Therefore, acquittal of Asha

Devi and her husband, Binod Paswan from the charges levelled against

them by learned appellate court is absolutely justified under law and do

not require any interference.

23. In view of the above discussion and reasons, conviction and sentence of

the petitioner, Sanjay Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar for the offence under

section 498A of IPC passed by learned trial court is restored and the

judgment and order passed by learned appellate court in respect of

petitioner, Sanjay Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar is hereby set aside to the

extent of acquittal from the charge under section 498A of IPC.

24. Accordingly, Cr. Revision No.23 of 2017 is partly allowed and Cr.

Revision No.1465 of 2016 is dismissed.

25. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.

26. Let a copy of this order along with Trial Court Records be sent back to

the court concerned for information and needful.

27. I take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr.

Salona Mittal, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of petitioner

in Cr. Revision No.1465 of 2016 and direct the Member Secretary, High

2026:JHHC:23876

Page 18 of 18

Cr. Revision Nos.1465 of 2016 & 23 of 2017

Court Legal Services Committee to extend the stipulated fee as per

notification of High Court Legal Services Committee to Mr. Salona

Mittal, learned Amicus Curiae within a period of four weeks from the

date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

28. Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is served upon

Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi

Date: 11 /08 /2026

Pappu/- N.A.F.R.

Uploaded on 11/ 08 /2026