2026:JHHC:5089 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No. 11623 of 2025 1. Ishwar Yadav, aged about 27 years, son of Gopal Yadav 2. Deepak Yadav, aged about 23 years, son of Indradeo Yadav 3. Ramesh Yadav, aged about 41 years, son of Dilo Mahato, All are Resident of Village-Podaiya, PO-Barhi, PS-Barhi, District- Hazaribag, State-Jharkhand ... … Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the State : APP For the Informant : Mr. Sahadeo Choudhary, Advocate Ms. Rashmi Mehta, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate -------- Order No. 03 /Dated: 19th February 2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant bail application has been preferred by the petitioners for grant of regular bail for the offences registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 324(4), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS in connection with Barhi PS Case No. 444 of 2024. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged in the First Information Report. He submits that matter relates to land dispute and there is a case and counter case between both the parties. He further submits that the co-accused, namely, Gopal Yadav in B.A No. 345 of 2025 and Ashok Yadav in B.A No. 4359 of 2025 have been granted bail vide order dated 07.03.2025 and 29.05.2025 respectively by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and they are in custody since 06.11.2025 as such, the petitioners may kindly be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners and relies upon the averments made in the 2026:JHHC:5089 2 counter affidavit and submits that after getting bail co-accused has again started fighting and, therefore, they have filed Cr.M.P against the order for bail granted to Ashok Yadav as such there is apprehension that these petitioners may also commit the same offence what Ashok Yadav has done. 5. Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner. 6. Having regard to the facts of the case that the co-accused in B.A No. 345 of 2025 and B.A No. 4359 of 2025 have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the petitioners are in custody since 06.11.2025 and also looking to the general allegation against the petitioners, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, above-named, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M, Hazaribag in connection with Barhi PS Case No. 444 of 2024. 7. The contention of the informant that these petitioners might commit the same offence after getting bail has nothing to do with instant case, however, it is made clear that the petitioners shall appear on each and every date before the learned trial Court and they shall not threaten any witness and shall co-operate in trial and if any adverse report will come against the above-named petitioners, learned trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the above-named petitioners. 8. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands allowed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 19th February 2026 Amit Uploaded on 24/022026