Supreme Court Pulls Up Jharkhand, Summons Home Secretary Over Repeated Non-Appearances
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
New Delhi, November 13: The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed strong displeasure over the repeated failure of the State of Jharkhand to appear before it in several matters, despite multiple notices issued earlier. Taking a serious view, the apex court directed the Home Secretary of the Jharkhand Government to be present virtually on Friday to explain the continued non-compliance.
A Division Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan made the direction while hearing a bail plea filed by an accused in a 2018 murder case. The case pertains to the killing of a man at the Daily Market Main Road taxi stand in Jharkhand. The petitioner, along with two others, faces prosecution under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 25(1-B) (a), 26, 27, and 35 of the Arms Act.
“This is the second matter on the board today. The State of Jharkhand, over a period of time, is cutting a very sorry figure. In many cases, we have noticed that the State does not care to appear. When it appears, it is too late This matter is coming up for the second time before us.
Today also, no one has appeared on behalf of the State of Jharkhand.
The matter before us is a bail application. The petitioner, along with two other co-accused, was added as an accused in the original trial by the trial court in exercise of its powers under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C”). We take notice of the fact that the police, on completion of the investigation, had filed a report that the petitioner herein was in no way involved in the alleged crime. When the trial was in progress against the charge sheeted accused persons, three eye witnesses deposed about the complicity of the present petitioner also and the two other co-accused. The trial against the petitioner is in progress. The petitioner prayed for bail before the High Court of Jharkhand. The High Court, by a very cryptic order, has rejected the bail application. In such circumstances, the petitioner is here before us praying for bail. We are taken by surprise to note that two other accused who are added by the trial court along with the present
petitioner in exercise of its powers under Section 319 of the
Cr.P.C. were granted anticipatory bail by the High Court. We have no idea in what circumstances anticipatory bail came to be granted to the other two co-accused. As noted above, there is no discussion worth the name in the impugned order, and therefore, we are unable to understand what is the case against the present petitioner. What is the
overt act attributed to the present petitioner? We did not have the advantage of hearing the State in this matter. No one has entered appearance despite service. We take a serious view of this matter.
In such circumstances, referred to above, we direct the Home Secretary of the State of Jharkhand to appear before us on-line tomorrow i.e. 14.11.2025. The Registry to inform about this order passed by us to
the Home Secretary of the State of Jharkhand immediately.”
The petitioner and two co-accused were added later under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) based on witness depositions. In April this year, Justice Ambuj Nath of the Jharkhand High Court had refused to grant bail to the petitioner, noting: “Considering the nature of the allegations, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.”
However, the Supreme Court was informed that two co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court without any discussion of the merits. Taking exception to this, the Bench observed that the manner in which the High Court granted bail to the co-accused persons was wholly unsatisfactory, lacking reasoning or analysis.
Visibly irked, the Bench questioned why the State Government had consistently failed to appear despite being served with notices. Justice Viswanathan orally remarked that “this appears to be a recurring issue with the State of Jharkhand.”
This is not the first time the top court has raised concerns about the State’s conduct. On November 10, the same Bench had criticised the Jharkhand High Court for granting bail to three individuals convicted of murder through a “vague and unreasoned” order. The Court had also noted that, in that case too, the Jharkhand Government failed to appear, and had not challenged the suspension of the sentence.
The Supreme Court said it was constrained to summon the Home Secretary personally, observing that repeated lapses by the State cannot be ignored.
The Petitioner is represented by Advocate Rajeev Singh
The Court also referred to its recent observations highlighting the poor state of judicial compliance in Jharkhand, noting with concern that out of 61 civil cases in which judgments were reserved before January 31, 2025, verdicts had been pronounced in only 14, while 47 remain pending.
The Bench remarked that such repeated institutional failures reflect a “disturbing pattern of administrative neglect”, and called for greater accountability at the highest levels of the State administration.
