Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 12907 (JHR)

RAJU YADAV v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./3962/2026 · 2026-05-13

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:JHHC:14719] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3962 of 2026 1. Raju Yadav, aged about 42 years, son of Late Vishun Yadav, 2. Chandranath Yadav, aged about 48 years, son of Late Bishun Yadav, both are residents of village- Medharua, P.O. & P.S.- Mahuwadand, Dist.- Latehar, Jharkhand … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Shahid Yunus, Adv. For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad , Addl.. PP 02 / 13.05.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Netarhat P.S Case no-12/2024 instituted for the offences punishable under Section 190/ 191/ 126/ 115/ 117(4)/ 324(3)/ 326(f)/ 352/ of B.N.S. and Section 17 of C.L.A. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, claiming themselves to be the members of CPI Maoists squad damaged, the solar plates, 08 CVs and CCUs of the BSNL Tower in Durup and also set fire to all the CCUs, cables and beaten and threatened to kill employees working there. It is next submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and without putting the petitioner on TIP, as mentioned in para 9 of the Bail Application, charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 27.02.2026, as mentioned in para 17 of this bail application. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to co- operate with the trial of the case and undertakes not to annoy or disturb the informant or the other witness of the case in any manner during trial of the case, hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. Learned Addl. P.P. opposed the prayer for bail. Considering submissions of learned counsels and the facts as stated above, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Hence, the court below is directed to release the petitioner 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 JMFC, Latehar in connection with Netarhat P.S Case no-12/2024 with the condition that the petitioner will not annoy or disturb the informant or the other witness of the case in any manner during trial of the case and will co-operate with the trial of the case and will furnish mobile phone number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that he will not change the mobile phone number during the trial of the case. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Dated 13.05.2026 Smita/-