State's Bid To Stall Compliance By Citing Pending SLP Before Supreme Court On Eve Of Holi Holidays Reflects Bad Faith, Officers Cautioned: Jharkhand High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Jharkhand High Court Single Bench of Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary directed the immediate release of a seized vehicle, finding that police authorities willfully defied a trial court's release order that had neither been stayed nor set aside. The Court held that seeking adjournment on the eve of a ten-day Holi break, citing a pending Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, was in bad faith and a ploy to circumvent prior specific judicial directions for compliance.
A petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Jharkhand arising from the seizure of his vehicle in connection with a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17 February 2026 in a crowded area of Ranchi. The trial court, J.M.F.C.-XIII, Ranchi, passed an order on 21 February 2026 directing the release of the said vehicle.
Despite the trial court's order and a subsequent direction passed by the High Court on 26 February 2026 — issued in the presence of the City Superintendent of Police, Ranchi — the vehicle was not released. The petitioner and his advocates personally visited Doranda Police Station with a copy of the High Court's order and handed it to the Officer-in-Charge, but the order was not complied with.
An interlocutory application was thereafter filed seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the Officer-in-Charge, Doranda Police Station and the City Superintendent of Police, Ranchi under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The State sought adjournment on the ground that a Special Leave Petition had been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's order of 26 February 2026. The State also submitted that investigation relating to the speed of the vehicle through a chip installed in the car, along with photographs of the damaged part, had not been completed.
The Court recorded that the adjournment sought by the State, on the eve of a ten-day Holi holiday break, solely on the ground of a pending Special Leave Petition, was "apparently in bad faith to stall the release of the vehicle and is nothing but a ploy to circumvent the order passed by the trial court as well as by this court."
On the nature of the incident, the Court stated that "this Court is dealing with the matter of release of vehicle seized on 17.02.2026 in a minor motor vehicle accident in a crowded area of Ranchi wherein rush hour at 10 O'clock, the vehicles move at a snail pace" and recorded that "no one was said to be even injured in the accident giving rise to case and counter case."
On compliance with court orders, the Court observed that "the order dated 21.02.2026 passed by the Trial Court, which was a court of competent jurisdiction has been observed by the concerned breach and in defiance" and that this "has been done when the order has not been stayed or set aside by any court of law." The Court further stated that "there is no reason given whatsoever why that order has not been complied with" and that "mere filing of an appeal or revision does not amount to a stay of the order impugned."
On the conduct of the police authorities, the Court recorded that "refusal to release is suggestive of personal vendetta against the Petitioner."
On the conditions for release, the Court stated that "the vehicle will be released only after giving an undertaking by the petitioner that whenever the vehicle is required for investigation, it will be made available to the Investigating Officer on the order passed by the learned trial Court" and that "there will not be any tampering with any gazette of the vehicle so as to result of loss of any evidence."
The Court directed: "This Court directs the immediate release of the vehicle/car bearing Registration No. JH01FW 0020 i.e. by 4:30 pm by today itself. A bond to that effect will be submitted by the Petitioner. With this observation, this interlocutory application for initiating contempt proceeding is adjourned for the day. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the City S.P., Ranchi and Sr. Superintendent of Police, Ranchi for its compliance."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Ritu Kumar, Rajendra Krishna, Abhay Kr. Mishra, Siddharth Ranjan, Karamjit Singh Chhabra, Akansha Priya, Piyush Kr. Roy, Amrendra Datri, S.G. Raman, Punam Shrivastava, Ajay Kr. Singh, Advocates; Meenakshi Arora, Senior Counsel (for State, online)
For the Respondent-State: Sachin Kumar, AAG-II; Achyut Keshav, AAG-V; Deepankar, AC to GA-III; Kumar Vaibhav, CGC (for UOI); Prashant Pallav, ASGI (for CBI)
Case Title: Manoj Tandon v. The State of Jharkhand Through The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi and Ors.
Case Number: W.P. (Cr) (Filing) No. 4238 of 2026
Bench: Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
