2026:JHHC:6265 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1366 of 2026 Binod Yadav, aged about 38 years, son of Tulsi Yadav, resident of village – Purnadih, P.O. – Dhabtham, P.S. – Chandwara, District – Koderma … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sanat Kr. Jha, Advocate --- 02/10.03.2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 20.11.2025 in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No.193 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No.41 of 2026, registered under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently cognizance has also been taken for the offences under Sections 414, 420, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been made an accused as per the F.I.R. on the basis of allegations made by co-villagers that the petitioner was seen along with the poclain machine. He further submits that the co-accused, namely Sagar @ Shakil Khan, who is similarly situated as that of the petitioner, has been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the petitioner has been in custody since 20.11.2025. It is also submitted that a separate case was instituted in connection with the same vehicle, in which the petitioner is an accused, and he has been enlarged on bail by the concerned court on 27.01.2026. 4. The learned counsel has also submitted that the co-accused claimed that poclain machine was sold to Dilip Singh and it is alleged that the petitioner has signed as a witness in that agreement and the said document has been found to be forged. 5. The learned counsel submits that apart from aforesaid two cases, there are no other case against the petitioner. 2026:JHHC:6265 2 6. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner, who is an accused in another case relating to the same vehicle, has been enlarged on bail, and that the co-accused in the present case, namely Sagar @ Shakil Khan, has also been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate bench in B.A. No.10161 of 2025, and further considering that the charge-sheet has already been submitted and cognizance has been taken, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged 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 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No.193 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No.41 of 2026, on the following conditions: (i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner. (ii) The other bailor should be his close relative. (iii) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of even single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner. (iv) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court. (v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned trial court. 8. The instant application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:10.03.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:10.03.2026