Jharkhand High Court Orders Immediate Release of Seized Car, Says Police Acted in Defiance of Court Orders

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 191

February 27, 2026 : The Jharkhand High Court has directed the immediate release of a vehicle seized in connection with a minor road accident in Ranchi, observing that the police authorities had acted in clear defiance of judicial orders. The Court also indicated that the conduct of the officials suggested deliberate non-compliance and could attract contempt proceedings.

The order was passed by a Single Bench of Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary while hearing a writ petition filed by Manoj Tandon. The petitioner approached the High Court alleging that despite clear orders from the trial court and a subsequent direction from the High Court itself, the police had failed to release his vehicle.

The matter arose from the seizure of the petitioner’s car following a motor vehicle accident that took place on 17 February 2026 in a crowded area of Ranchi. Subsequently, on 21 February 2026, the Judicial Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.-XIII), Ranchi ordered the release of the vehicle bearing registration number JH01FW 0020. However, the order was not complied with by the authorities.

The petitioner then approached the High Court, which on 26 February 2026 also directed the release of the vehicle. The order was passed in the presence of the City Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, and was communicated to the Officer-in-Charge of Doranda Police Station. Despite this, the police still did not release the vehicle. According to the petitioner, he and his lawyers personally visited the police station with a copy of the High Court’s order, but the directions remained unimplemented.

As a result, an interlocutory application was filed seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the Officer-in-Charge of Doranda Police Station and the City Superintendent of Police, Ranchi under Article 215 of the Constitution and Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

During the hearing, the State sought adjournment, informing the Court that a Special Leave Petition had been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s order dated 26 February 2026. The State also submitted that investigation related to the speed of the vehicle, based on a chip installed in the car and photographs of the damaged portions, had not yet been completed.

The High Court, however, rejected the request for adjournment and observed that the attempt to delay the matter on the eve of the Holi holidays appeared to be made in bad faith. The Court remarked that seeking adjournment solely on the ground that a Special Leave Petition had been filed was an attempt to stall the release of the vehicle and circumvent the orders of both the trial court and the High Court.

Justice Choudhary further noted the irony of the situation, observing that the case concerned the release of a vehicle seized in what appeared to be a minor accident in a crowded area where traffic typically moves very slowly. The Court recorded that no person had suffered injuries in the incident, which had resulted in case and counter-case between the parties.

The Court also emphasized that the order passed by the trial court on 21 February 2026 was by a competent court and had neither been stayed nor set aside by any higher court. In such circumstances, the authorities were legally bound to comply with it. The Court reiterated that the mere filing of an appeal or revision does not automatically operate as a stay of the order under challenge.

Expressing concern over the conduct of the officials, the Court observed that the refusal to release the vehicle was suggestive of personal vendetta against the petitioner.

In its final direction, the Court ordered that the vehicle be released immediately, directing the police to hand it over to the petitioner by 4:30 pm the same day. The release was made subject to the condition that the petitioner furnish a bond and undertake to produce the vehicle whenever required by the investigating officer upon the orders of the trial court. The Court also directed that there should be no tampering with any part of the vehicle that might affect evidence.

The High Court further ordered that a copy of the order be communicated to the City Superintendent of Police and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi for compliance. The contempt application filed by the petitioner was adjourned for further consideration.

Case Reference : W.P. (Cr) (Filing) No. 4238 of 2026, Manoj Tandon v. The State of Jharkhand through the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi & Ors.; Counsels: 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 and Ajay Kr. Singh, Advocates; For the Respondent-State: Sachin Kumar, AAG-II; Achyut Keshav, AAG-V; Deepankar, AC to GA-III; For the Union of India: Kumar Vaibhav, CGC; For the CBI: Prashant Pallav, ASGI.