Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 17582 (JHR)

BIRENDRA JI @ SHANKAR YADAV @ BIRENDAR YADAV v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cr.A(DB)/667/2026 · 2026-06-22

Arun Kumar Rai, Rongon Mukhopadhyay

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:18162-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 667 of 2026 Birendra Ji @ Shankar Yadav @ Birendar Yadav, Aged about 45 Years S/O Late Bishwanath Yadav R/O Village Palheya P.O. Palheya P/S Manika Distt. Latehar, Jharkhand. …. …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Respondent --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay Hon’ble Mr. justice Arun Kumar Rai For the Appellant: Mr. Surendra Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the Resp.-State: A.P.P. --- I.A. No. 7328 of 2026 02/ 22.06.2026 Heard Mr. Surendra Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. 2. This application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning the delay of 09 days in filing the appeal. 3. Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and the delay of 09 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. I.A. No. 7328 of 2026 stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 667 of 2026 5. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.04.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- II, Latehar in Misc. Cr. Application No. 320/2026, arising out of 2026:JHHC:18162-DB Manika P.S. Case No. 84/2013 whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected. 6. It has been alleged that there was an exchange of firing between the extremists and the Police personnel and on being out maneuvered, the extremists had fled away. 7. Submission has been advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant that though the appellant is named in the First Information Report but the same is on the basis of suspicion. 8. It has been submitted that the appellant is in custody since 19.03.2020 and one of the co-accused similarly situated has been granted bail in B.A.No. 3039 of 2021. 9. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant. 10. Regard being had to the fact that the appellant seems to have been implicated primarily on account of suspicion and the period of custody undergone by him, we while setting order dated 20.04.2026, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Latehar in Misc. Cr. Application No.320/2026, arising out of Manika P.S. Case No. 84 of 2013, direct that the appellant be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of 2026:JHHC:18162-DB Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Latehar in connection with S.T.No.61A/2017, arising out of Manika P.S. Case No.84/2013. 11. This appeal is allowed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 22nd June, 2026 P.K.S./Suman Uploaded