2026:JHHC:24952 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3932 of 2026 ---- Binod Kumar Yadav @ Vinod Kumar Yadav, aged about 42 years, son of Rupan Prasad Yadav, resident of Ward No.12, Village Kharpoka, PO Makatpur, PS Jainagar and District Koderma .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate ---- 2/19.08.2026 Heard learned counsels for petitioner and for State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sukhdeonagar (Pandra O.P) PS Case No.167 of 2026, for offence registered under section 318(4), 319(2) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 10 and 11 of Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2004 and Section 66(C), 66(D) and 43 of I.T. Act, 2000, pending in court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class- XXXI, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has nothing to do with the allegation of doing mischief in the examination of Constables. He next submits that the petitioner was earlier arrested in Kolkata and the petitioner has filed a petition before the court of learned A.C.J.M, Kolkata to release the petitioner on transit remand and the same was dismissed. However, the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail for one week, and thereafter, the petitioner has filed anticipatory bail petition before 2026:JHHC:24952 2 the court of learned Sessions Judge which was rejected and, on these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. 4. Learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that serious allegations are there against the petitioner and all the mischief has been done by the petitioner. He next submits that three co-accused persons’ regular bail has already been rejected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. He also submits that in paragraph nos.14, 15 and 16 of the case-diary it has come that the petitioner was having communication with the examinees. 5. Considering that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of communicating with the examinees and about the Video it has also been recorded by the Coordinator of the Examination to the effect that the Mouse of the Computer was moving in absence of it being operated by any human being and in paragraph nos.14, 15 and 16 of the case diary, it has come that the petitioner has communicated with the examinees and as the serious allegation is there against the petitioner and as such, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, and as such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected and consequently, A.B.A. No.3932 of 2026 is, hereby, dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 19.08.2026 SI/