DEEPAK YADAV ALIAS DEEPAK KUMAR YADAV v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./8877/2025 · 2025-10-10
Anil Kumar Choudhary
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 33475 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 33475 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
( 2025:JHHC:31548 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8877 of 2025
------ Deepak Yadav @ Deepak Kumar Yadav, aged about 25 years, son of Sri Mohan Yadav, resident of Village Surhi, Dibha Muhalla, P.O. –Chatra, P.S. –Chatra (Sadar), District –Chatra.
… Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
: Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate
: Mr. Nishant Kr. Roy, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate ------
Order No.03 Dated- 10.10.2025
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with S.T. Case No. 61 of 2025 arising out of Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No.29 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail and earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 06.05.2025 in B.A. No. 3720 of 2025. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the only fresh ground is that the petitioner has been in custody for some more time. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of brutally committing the murder of Prakash Kumar Yadav, therefore, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chances of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, the prayer for regular bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the order dated 06.05.2025 in B.A. No. 3720 of 2025.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
10.10.2025
Sonu/Gunjan-