Jharkhand High Court
Amit Sharma @ Titu Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Under … on 16 February, 2026
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2026:JHHC:4393
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (Cr) No. 745 of 2025
-----
Amit Sharma @ Titu Sharma, S/o Late Ramjap Sharma @ Ramjai Sharma,
R/o Golpahari Khasmahal, P.O. & P.S.-Parsudih, Town-Jamshedpur,
Dist.-East Singhbhum … …. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Under Secretary, Department of Home,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building,
P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi
2. The District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
P.O. & P.S.-Bistupur, Town-Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum,
P.O.& P.S.-Sakchi, Town-Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.O. & P.S.-Sakchi, Town,
Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum … …. Respondents
—–
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
—–
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Deepankar, AC to GA-III
—–
Oral Order
04 / Dated : 16. 02.2026
1. Instant writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated
26.07.2025 communicated through Memo No. 453(A) in CCA Case
No. 33 of 2023-24 under Section 3(3)(A) of Jharkhand Control of
Crimes Act, 2002 and subsequent orders dated 26.07.2025, 25.10.2025
and 22.01.2026 by which the petitioner has been externed for entering
within the jurisdiction of Jamshedpur which was originally ordered
from 02.08.2025 to 01.11.2025 and by the last order now it has been
extended up-to 01.05.2026.
2. As per the externment order, the petitioner was an accused in the
following cases:
i. Parsudih P.S. Case No. 116 of 2007 under Sections 448, 324,
307, 504/34 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act
ii. Parsudih P.S. Case No. 54 of 2008 under Sections 384, 386, 387,
504/34 of IPC
iii. Parsudih P.S. Case No. 17 of 2023 under Sections 323, 341, 325,
385/34 of IPC
iv. Golmuri P.S. Case No. 416 of 2007 under Sections 386/387 of
2026:JHHC:4393IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act
v. Golmuri P.S. Case No. 91 of 2008 under Sections 387/34 of IPC
vi. Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 51 of 2016 under Sections 302/34
of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act
3. Apart from these cases, station diary entries have been made with
respect to the following cases with active complicity of the petitioner:
a. Parsudih SD Entry No. 37/2023
b. Parsudih SD Entry No. 50/2023
c. Parsudih SD Entry No. 34/2023
d. Bagbera SD Entry No. 14/2023
e. Jugsalai SD Entry No. 15/2023
All the station diary entries pertain to extortionist demands made by
the petitioner from the business men, builders and other persons
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that out of six
police cases cited above, the petitioner has been acquitted of the
charges after trial and is on bail in Parsudih P.S. Case No. 17 of 2023.
5. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot be termed as a habitual
offender in terms of Section 2(d) of Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act,
2002. There is no live link between the activities of the petitioner and
public threat. So far as the station diary entries are concerned, it is
contended that unless a Sanha is converted into a cognizable offence,
the same cannot be the basis of externment by relying on the ratio laid
down by this Court in 2025 (2) JBCJ 46 (HC).
6. Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned order and
submitted that the object of Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act is
preventive in nature, to maintain public order and social freedom. The
petitioner has a past history of being involved in extortionist activity
and presently the petitioner is an active member involved in making
extortionist demands regarding which different cases have been
lodged. Because of his clout, the witnesses are not coming forward to
testify against him resulting in acquittal in some of the cases.
7. Further, it has been pleaded that against an order of externment, there
is a provision for appeal under Section 6 of the Jharkhand Control of
Crimes Act, 2002 and without availing the statutory remedy, the extra
2
2026:JHHC:4393
ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court has been availed.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides,
indisputably, the petitioner has a track record of being involved in
extortionist cases that took place in the district of Jamshedpur, which is
one of the industrial hubs of the State and for this reason he has been
externed from district of East Singhbhum, headquarter of which is at
Jamshedpur. The ratio relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner,
with regard to criminal antecedent of the petitioner, will not have a
direct application, since the said case was about preventive detention
and not on order of externment.
9. This Court is of the view that considering the nature of the offence in
which the Petitioner is/was involved, and available statutory remedy,
this is not a fit case for exercising writ jurisdiction. The petitioner will
be at liberty to avail the available statutory remedy before invoking
extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
Under the circumstance, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT/Satayendra
Uploaded
18.02.2026
3
