The Jharkhand High Court has delivered a series of rulings in October 2026 addressing custody, bail, and criminal procedure, while the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified procedural timelines for cheque bounce complaints. LiveLaw reported these decisions in its monthly digest for the region. The judgments establish specific legal standards for family law, juvenile justice, and financial disputes in the respective jurisdictions.
In a matter concerning child custody, a Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Sanjay Prasad held that a Muslim mother has a preferential right to the custody of her daughter until she attains puberty under Hanafi law. The court emphasized that the child's welfare remains the paramount consideration. The bench was hearing an appeal against an ex parte order from the Additional Principal Judge in Ranchi, which had directed the mother to hand over her four-year-old daughter to the father within a week. The High Court ruled that custody disputes cannot be decided ex parte, as hearing both parties is essential to determine the child's best interests.
Regarding juvenile justice, a Single Judge Bench led by Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi ruled that bail is the rule for juveniles in conflict with law under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The court held that bail cannot be denied merely on the apprehension that the juvenile might associate with criminals unless there is material evidence to support such a conclusion. This decision overturned orders by the Juvenile Justice Board in Hazaribagh and the Additional Sessions Judge, which had previously refused bail to the petitioner.
In a significant procedural clarification, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed petitions seeking to quash complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Justice Yash Paul Bourney observed that filing a complaint a day before the expiry of the fifteen-day statutory period is not fatal if the court takes cognizance only after that period has passed. The court noted that the provisions must be interpreted pragmatically to address financial indiscipline in business transactions. In the specific case, a property dealer had issued cheques for a land sale that bounced, and the court found the complaints maintainable despite the premature filing.