Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2026 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. High Court Of Jharkhand/
  4. 2024/
  5. December

Shahnaj Khatun vs. the State of Jharkhand

Decided on 20 December 2024• Citation: Cr.M.P./1940/2024• High Court of Jharkhand
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                    IN THE HIGH  COURT   OF JHARKHAND     AT RANCHI                 
                                   Cr.M.P. No.1940 of 2024                          
                    Shahnaj Khatun @ Sainaj Khatun aged about 41 years, W/o Munna   
                    Ansari, R/o Village Jabardaha, P.O. + P.S. Hiranpur, District Pakur
                    (Jharkhand)                       …    Petitioner               
                                           Versus                                   
                                                      …                             
                    The State of Jharkhand                 Respondent               
               Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR  SRIVASTAVA                 
                    For the Appellant  : Md. Asadul Haque, Adv.                     
                    For the State      : Mr. Fahad Allam, Addl. P.P.                
                 Order No.05/Dated- 20.12.2024                                      
                         Heard learned counsel for the parties.                     
                         This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed with a 
                    prayer to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail by making 
                    modification in the order dated 19.03.2024 passed by this Court in
                    A.B.A No.4956 of 2023, whereby the anticipatory bail application of
                    the petitioner has been rejected.                               
                         Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Misc. Application No.1572
                    of 2021 (Supertech Limited v. Emerald Court Owner Resident      
                    Welfare Association & Ors.) dated 04.10.2021 held in para 12 as 
                    under:                                                          
                             “12. The hallmark of a judicial pronouncement is its   
                         stability and finality. Judicial verdicts are not like sand
                         dunes which are subject to the vagaries of wind and        
                         weather. A disturbing trend has emerged in this court of   
                         repeated applications, styled as Miscellaneous Applications,
                         being filed after a final judgment has been pronounced.    
                         Such a practice has no legal foundation and must be firmly 
                         discouraged. It reduces litigation to a gambit.            
                         Miscellaneous Applications are becoming a preferred course 
                         to those with resources to pursue strategies to avoid      
                         compliance with judicial decisions. A judicial             
                         pronouncement cannot be subject to modification            
                         once the judgment has been pronounced, by filing a         

                                         -2-                                        
                         miscellaneous application. Filing of a miscellaneous       
                         application seeking modification/clarification of a        
                         judgment is not envisaged in law. Further, it is a         
                         settled legal principle that one cannot do indirectly      
                         what one cannot do directly.”                              
                         Present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is likely to tend the
                    renew of earlier order without any legal justification.         
                         For the above reasons, there is no substance in the        
                    miscellaneous petition.                                         
                         Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed
                    as not maintainable.                                            
                                          (Pradeep Kumar   Srivastava, J.)          
               Sachin