2026:JHHC:21847 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5015 of 2026 Ranjit Yadav @ Ranjeet Yadav, Son of Ghanshyam Yadav … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Senior Advocate [Joined Online] : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, APP For the Informant : Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Gaurav Priyadarshi, Advocate --- 03/23.07.2026 A counter-affidavit has been filed during the court proceedings which is taken on record. 2. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 03.08.2025 in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 408 of 2025 arising out of Peterwar P.S. Case No. 111 of 2025, registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 333, 109(1), 74, 351(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bermo at Tenughat. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although the petitioner is named in the First Information Report, but there is no allegation in the First Information Report that the petitioner ever assaulted Mantu Yadav who has died subsequently on account of head injury caused by rod. The learned counsel submits that the entire dispute arose on account of some dispute relating to a child and there is case and counter-case between the parties. 5. With respect to stage of the case, it has been submitted that out of 10 witnesses, 2 witnesses have already been examined and charge has been framed under sections 115(2)/3(5), 118(1)/3(5), 351(2) /3(5), 117(2)/3(5), 103(1)/3(5) and 133/3(5), of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the 2026:JHHC:21847 2 petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 03.08.2025 which is almost a year by now. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State and learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, have opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that it has come during investigation in paragraph 7 of the case-diary that it was the petitioner who had assaulted Mantu Yadav by Rod and ultimately, Mantu Yadav died due to such injury. They have also submitted that the First Information Report may not disclose every fact, but this was disclosed immediately after the report was given to the police. They submit that even the victim lady, who suffered minor injuries, has made similar allegations against the petitioner. 8. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the co-accused namely, Ghanshyam Yadav and Diwakar Yadav have been granted bail in B.A. No. 10172 of 2025 vide order dated 25.11.2025. 9. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the aforesaid statement recorded in the case-diary which is directly against the petitioner which caused death of Mantu Yadav and in view of the specific materials which have come against the petitioner during investigation that he had assaulted Mantu Yadav, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 10. So far as the bail granted to the co-accused is concerned, the order granting bail dated 25.11.2025 itself reveals that a submission was made by the petitioners in the said case that there is specific allegation of assault against the co-accused Ranjit Yadav and said Ranjit Yadav is the petitioner before this Court. Therefore, the case of the present petitioner is not similarly situated as that of the persons who have been granted bail in B.A. No. 10172 of 2025. 11. This bail application is hereby rejected. 12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:23.07.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:24.07.2026