SONU YADAV ALIAS ADITYA KUMAR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
A.B.A./6842/2024 · 2025-06-17
Sri Ananda Sen
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 26801 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 26801 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:JHHC:15880 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.6842 of 2024 ------ Sonu Yadav @ Aditya Kumar, S/o Sudhir Kumar Yadav, through its Natural Guardian (father) Sudhir Kumar Yadav, S/o Sotilal Yadav, R/o Kanke Road, near CCL Hospital, Dhawan Nagar Colony, PO and PS Gonda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand … … Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party(s)
With A.B.A. No.6859 of 2024 ------ Sonu Yadav @ Aditya Kumar, S/o Sudhir Kumar Yadav, through its Natural Guardian (father) Sudhir Kumar Yadav, S/o Sotilal Yadav, R/o Kanke Road, near CCL Hospital, Dhawan Nagar Colony, PO and PS Gonda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
… … Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party(s)
------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P.
Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, APP ----- 04/ 17.06.2025 Heard the parties.
2. Both the cases arises out of the same incident and the same occurrence.
3. These anticipatory bail applications under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, have been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for offences registered under Sections 191(2)(3), 190, 126(2), 109, 303(2), 115(2), 117(2), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the court of JMFC at Ranchi in connection with Lalpur PS Case No. 201 of 2024 and Sections 191(2)(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the court of JMFC at Ranchi in connection with Lalpur PS Case No. 197 of 2024.
4. The allegation against this petitioner and others is that
2025:JHHC:15880 2
they have assaulted the victim. The factum of assault is corroborated by the injury report.
5. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the nature of allegation, this Court finds it not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, these Anticipatory Bail Applications stand dismissed.
8. If the petitioner appears before the concerned court his case will be considered on its own merits based on the grounds raised by the petitioner.
(ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/Cp-3