Jharkhand High Court halts probe in cross FIRs over Ranchi road mishap involving advocate

The High Court of Jharkhand on Thursday stayed the police investigation in two criminal cases arising out of a road mishap in Doranda, Ranchi, involving an advocate and a software engineer [Manoj Tandon v. The State of Jharkhand through Director General of Police and Ors.]

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi passed the interim order on February 19 after the advocate, Manoj Tandon, alleged that he was being harassed by the police and feared that he would be arrested without proper notice.

He questioned the fairness of the probe in cross cases registered over the same incident, and raised concerns that the police were enabling a media trial over a petty accident. He sought the transfer of the investigation to an independent agency such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),

The Court also took critical note of submissions that two different investigating officers were handling the cross FIRs.

Justice Dwivedi observed that courts do not ordinarily halt criminal investigations at the initial stages. However, he went on to opine that there were larger concerns in the present case that warranted closer scrutiny.

In this regard, the Court also took note of concerns raised by the Centre and the CBI that there have been attempts to give "another colour" to the case, which could be dangerous and land the entire city in trouble.

The Court, therefore, granted the advocate Tandon interim protection until responses are received from the State as well as the Central government and the CBI in the matter.

“The federal structure of our Constitution of India cannot be allowed to be destroyed and it is a duty of the High Court that once such type of matter is brought to the knowledge of the Court, the High Court is required to rise to the occasion," it added.

According to reports, the lawyer's car and the software engineer's bike collided on February 17, leading to an altercation. After a mob gathered at the scene, the lawyer was alleged to have driven away, on fears that he might be attacked by the angry crowd.

The engineer is reported to have grabbed onto the bonnet of the lawyer's car by then to stop it from leaving. The engineer's family claimed that the lawyer kept driving the car for nearly two kilometers with the engineer clinging onto the bonnet. His family also alleged that after the car came to a halt, the engineer was assaulted by a group of people.

The lawyer has denied the allegations. He says that his car barely touched the engineer's bike for any demand for compensation to be made. In his plea before the High Court, Tandon said he was driving to the High Court around 10 AM when a motorcycle allegedly swerved in front of his car and the two vehicles brushed against each other, leading to the argument.

His counsel raised concerns that there is a gang in Ranchi that extorts money from car owners after intentionally hitting them.

His counsel also referred to Instagram posts that were attributed to the engineer to claim that the latter had posted slogans of the banned People's Front of India (PFI). His counsel argued that a National Investigation Agency (NIA) probe was warranted into the same.

Tandon told the Court that after the incident, he was taken to Doranda police station and made to remain there from morning until about 5 PM. He claimed that his car was taken into custody, but no formal seizure memo had been prepared.

The State, however, later informed the Court that seizure memos had since been prepared for both the lawyer's car and the engineer's bike.

Two First Information Reports (FIRs) were lodged over the incident, resulting in cross cases. One FIR was registered against Tandon, while the other was filed by Tandon himself.

Tandon argued that since both FIRs stem from the same incident, the investigation should be handled in a coordinated and fair manner, warning that having two different investigating officers could result in conflicting conclusions.

He also claimed that being kept at the police station for hours without being formally arrested or served a statutory notice breached basic procedural safeguards.

After hearing these preliminary arguments, the Court directed that no coercive steps be taken against Tandon in connection with the matter for the time being.

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, was directed to assess the situation and ensure that no harm comes to Tandon.

The matter is scheduled to be heard again on March 24, 2026. after State of Jharkhand, through its Director General of Police, the concerned police officials, and the CBI file their responses.

Advocates Ritu Kumar, AK Kashyap, Rajendra Krishna, Abhay Kumar Mishra, Siddharth Ranjan, Akansha Priya, Piyush Kumar Roy, Amritansh Vats and Karamjit Singh Chhabra appeared for the petitioner, Manoj Tandon.

The State of Jharkhand was represented by Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate-III Deepankar.

Central Government Counsel Kumar Vaibhav appeared for the Union of India.

Assistant Counsel to the Additional Solicitor General of India Shivani Jaluka represented the CBI.

[Read Order]