Manoj Tandon vs The State of Jharkhand through the Director General of Police

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 404

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J
Manoj Tandon – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Director General of Police – Respondent
W. P. (Cr) (Filing) No. 4238 of 2026

Important Points

The filing of an appeal or revision against a court order does not automatically operate as a stay of that order; willful non-compliance with a judicial direction for the release of property may attract contempt proceedings.

Subject

Criminal - Contempt of Court

Act Referred

Constitution of India: Art.215
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: S.11, S.12

Headnote

The petitioner sought the release of a vehicle (Registration No. JH01FW 0020) following orders passed by the J.M.F.C.-XIII, Ranchi on 21.02.2026 and the High Court on 26.02.2026. Due to non-compliance by the City S.P. and Officer-in-Charge of Doranda Police Station, an application was filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court observed that the police attempted to stall the release by citing a pending Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court. The primary issue was whether the filing of an appeal or revision against a release order constitutes a stay of that order. The court reasoned that "mere filing of an appeal or revision does not amount to a stay of the order impugned" and characterized the state's request for adjournment as a "ploy to circumvent the order passed by the trial court as well as by this court." The Court directed the immediate release of the vehicle by 4:30 pm on the same day, subject to the petitioner providing an undertaking and a bond to ensure the vehicle is available for investigation if required.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: 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
For the Respondents: Sachin Kumar, Achyut Keshav, Deepankar, Kumar Vaibhav, Prashant Pallav

Table of Content
1. urgent listing of a matter due to willful disobedience of court orders for the release of a vehicle. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. initiation of contempt proceedings under article 215 of the constitution and the contempt of courts act for non-compliance with judicial orders. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. the filing of a special leave petition (slp) or appeal does not automatically stay the operation of a lower court's order. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. judicial determination that refusal to comply with a release order without a formal stay is an act of bad faith. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. conditional release of seized property subject to an undertaking and bond to ensure availability for investigation. (Para 21 , 22)

Oral Order

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dipankar, learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter needs to be urgent listed as there is willful disobedience and non-compliance to the order passed by this Court as well as by the Trial Court for release of the vehicle of the petitioner.

3. List this case today at 11:30 am.

4. City S.P., Ranchi as well as Officer In-charge of Doranda Police Station are strictly directed to appear in person before this Court at 11:30 am.

5. In the meantime, Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi is also directed to appear before this Court through Video Conferencing at 11:30 am.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.

Later on at 11:30 am

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that the matter is to be mentioned before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of mentioning today at 1:00 pm to challenge the order passed by this Court on 26.02.2026 for release of vehicle in question.

7. Accordingly, this matter is adjourned to be heard at 2:15 pm.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.

Later on at 2:15 pm

I.A. No.3287 of 2026

8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Achyut Keshav, learned counsel appearing for the State on the aforesaid interlocutory application filed for initiating contempt proceeding against Ms. Deepika Prasad (Officer-in-Charge, Doranda Police Station, Ranchi and Mr. Paras Rana (Superintendent of Police/ City S.P., Ranchi) for their willful and deliberate non-compliance of the order dated 26.02.2026 passed by this Court.

9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 21.02.2026 passed for release of the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No.JH01FW 0020 by J.M.F.C.-XIII, Ranchi in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No.51 of 2026 has not been complied with despite a specific direction passed by this Court yesterday i.e. 26.02.2026 in presence of City Superintendent of Police, Ranchi (Mr. Paras Rana).

10. For deliberate and intentional non-compliance to the order passed by this Court, the aforesaid I.A. being I.A. No.3287 of 2026 has been filed for initiating contempt proceeding against Ms. Deepika Prasad (Officer-in-Charge, Doranda Police Station, Ranchi and Mr. Paras Rana (Superintendent of Police/ City S.P., Ranchi) under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts’ Act, 1971.

11. A detailed order was passed on 26.02.2026 in I.A. No.3028 of 2026 with a direction to release the said vehicle, in the presence of City Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, the said order was pronounced and was directed to be duly communicated to the Officer-in-charge Doranda Police Station. The petitioner and other learned Advocates went to Doranda Police Station for release of the said vehicle along with the order passed by this Court, but the order for release was defied and not complied with.

12. The order had been communicated and duly handed-over by the petitioner to Ms. Deepika Prasad (Officer-in-Charge, Doranda Police Station, Ranchi, but despite this, the said vehicle has not been released.

13. It is submitted by Mr. Achyut Keshav, learned counsel appearing for the State that a Speci