RAJDEV YADAV ALIAS RAJDEB YADAV ALIAS RAJDEO YADAV v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./3013/2026 · 2026-05-13
Anil Kumar Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 12740 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 12740 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
( 2026:JHHC:14708 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 3013 of 2026
------ Rajdev Yadav @ Rajdeb Yadav @ Rajdeo Yadav, aged about 23 years, son of Sukhdev Yadav, resident of Village- Kushmaha, P.S.-Budhai, P.O.-Ghormara, Dist.-Deoghar, Jharkhand … Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, Addl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate ------
Order No.03 Dated- 13.05.2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Margomunda P.S. Case No.05 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 310(2) of the B.N.S.,
2023.
Learned counsel for the petitioner files the interlocutory application no. 6945 of 2026 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the pairvikar of the petitioner and the informant. Keep the same in the record.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed dacoity. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the informant that both the petitioner and the informant have jointly and voluntarily entered into a compromise and amicably settled their dispute. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and because of some misunderstanding, this case was instituted. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 11.02.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 01 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case and
further undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the pendency of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.
Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the abovenamed petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1st Class, Madhupur, in connection with Margomunda P.S. Case No.05 of 2026 with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish his mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case, with further condition that he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the pendency of the case.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
13.05.2026 Gunjan-