Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1176 (JHR)

ANUP YADAV @ ANUP KUMAR YADAV v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./438/2026 · 2026-01-28

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:2087 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- A.B.A. No. 438 of 2026 ---- 1.Anup Yadav @ Anup Kumar Yadav, aged about 28 years son of Badri Yadav 2.Babita Devi, aged about 30 years, wife of Anup Yadav @ Anup Kumar Yadav 3.Niriya Devi, aged about 57 years son of Badri Yadav 4.Badri Yadav, aged about 58 years, son of Talo Yadav, All above petitioners are resident of Village Kandrapadhi, PO Kanko, and PS Jainagar, District Koderma, Jharkhand .... Petitioners -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Ashutosh Pd Joshi, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, Advocate ---- 4/28.01.2026 Heard learned counsels for petitioner and for State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Jainagar P.S. Case No.145 of 2025, for offence registered under section 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 303(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023, pending in court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that there are land dispute between the parties and there are case and counter case between the parties and due to that, the scuffle took place. He also submits that the petitioners are having no criminal antecedent as disclosed in paragraph no.14. 4. Learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that allegations are there and grievous injury has been received by the 2026:JHHC:2087 2 brother of the informant. 5. Looking to the contents of the FIR it transpires that there is direct allegation against the petitioner no.1, namely, Anup Yadav @ Anup Kumar Yadav of assault and pursuant to that the injury has been received and in that view of the matter I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner no.1, namely, Anup Yadav @ Anup Kumar Yadav and as such, prayer for anticipatory bail in respect of petitioner no.1, is, hereby, rejected. 6. So far as the petitioner nos.2 to 4 are concerned, there are general and omnibus allegations against them of assault and as such, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner nos.2 to 4. 7. Accordingly, petitioner nos.2 to 4, above named, are hereby directed to surrender before learned court within three weeks from today, and in event of their surrender/arrest, petitioner nos.2 to 4, above named, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each, with two sureties of like amount each, to satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, in connection with Jainagar P.S. Case No.145 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 482(2) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 28.01.2026 SI/