The Supreme Court on Friday required Jharkhand’s Home Secretary, Ms. Vandana Dadel, to personally appear online, following repeated instances where the State failed to be represented despite service of notice being complete. The Bench expressed strong displeasure and instructed her to ensure that State law officers are present in all matters before the Court.

 

Turning to the main case, the Bench also directed the Jharkhand government to challenge the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to two persons accused in a murder case, pointing out that the High Court order lacked any discussion on merits.

 

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan briefly interacted with the Home Secretary and reminded her of multiple earlier orders flagging the State’s chronic non-appearance. Justice Pardiwala asked:

 

 

Referring to another recent matter, Justice Pardiwala recounted how a complainant had approached the Supreme Court after the High Court suspended the sentences of three murder convicts. The State had not contested those orders.

 

“Those were extremely cryptic orders. No one represented the State. We had to intervene and remit the matter. We expect proper assistance,” he said.

 

He further questioned the State’s handling of law and order:

 

 

Ms. Dadel admitted that the lapse was serious, apologised, and assured the Court that such failures would not recur.

 

Advocate Pragya Baghel, who appeared for Jharkhand, explained that she had not been issued the vakalatnama the previous day and also apologised. She informed the Court that there are six accused—three charge-sheeted and three added later under Section 319 CrPC after the High Court disagreed with the police’s closure report. Trial has concluded for the first three, resulting in two convictions and one acquittal. Of the remaining trio, two are on anticipatory bail and the third is before the Supreme Court seeking regular bail.

 

Justice Pardiwala questioned why the police filed a closure report despite the FIR and eyewitness stating that the three additional accused had fired shots.

 

Baghel admitted the chargesheet did not provide any reasoning. The Bench then questioned both Baghel and the Home Secretary about the High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail to Shamsher and Md. Arshad, and why the State had not yet challenged those orders.

 

Justice Pardiwala asked the Home Secretary:

 

 

Ms. Dadel replied: “We should have challenged it earlier.”

 

Baghel further noted that the petitioner had not appeared before the Trial Court, necessitating a non-bailable warrant, a fact not disclosed to the Court earlier. She informed that the State intends to file an appeal within two weeks.

 

Accordingly, the Supreme Court adjourned the matter for two weeks, directing that all related matters be heard together.

 

The Court’s order records:

 

The Home Secretary has appeared online and acknowledged the lapses pointed out by the Bench. Regarding the main matter, the Court noted that the High Court’s anticipatory bail orders for Shamsher and Arshad simply directed them to appear before the Trial Court and furnish bonds, without evaluating the merits of the accusations. In contrast, the High Court had declined bail to Guddu (Md. Imran) after considering the allegations. The State now recognises the need to challenge the anticipatory bail orders and may file the appropriate petitions before the next hearing.

 

The Bench directed both sides to prepare a common compilation containing:

• depositions of all three eyewitnesses implicating Guddu, Arshad and Shamsher,

• the post-mortem report, and

• the Section 319 CrPC order of the Trial Court.