Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5101 (JHR)

KUNAL KUMAR YADAV ALLIAS KAMAL YADAV v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./11429/2025 · 2026-02-19

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:4957 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.11429 of 2025 Kunal Kumar Yadav @ Kunal Yadav, age-19 years, Son of- Ram Kishore Yadav, Resident of Vill- Belbathan P.O.- Sundmara, P.S.-Deodanr, District- Godda, Jharkhand. … Petitioner. Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party. Coram:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Sushma Aind, A.P.P. Order No.03/Dated- 19.02.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Poraiyahat P.S. Case No. 186 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. No. 133/2023, T.R. No. 853 of 2025 registered for offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code which is pending in the Court of Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda. 3. As per the F.I.R., it is alleged by the informant that four unknown miscreants came on a motorcycle armed with weapon and looted away a Camera and a Realme company mobile phone from him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during investigation present petitioner along with one Rohit Yadav was arrested on 15.11.2022. A camera was recovered from the possession of the present petitioner for which a separate case Poraiyahat P.S. Case No. 187 of 2022 was lodged and only on that basis present petitioner has been involved in the case with allegation that the said camera recovered from the petitioner was looted from the informant of this case. No test identification parade of the alleged looted camera which was seized from the petitioner in another case has been put on T.I.P. Petitioner has no other criminal antecedents and charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate in the trial of the case by remaining physically present as and when required and shall not indulge in any manner in tampering with the 2026:JHHC:4957 prosecution evidences or influencing the witnesses of prosecution, hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. 6. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am inclined to admit the above-named petitioner, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees twenty-thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda in connection with Poraiyahat P.S. Case No. 186 of 2022. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Dated-19.02.2026 Amar/- Uploaded on:- 20.02.2026.