VIDYOUT YADAV ALIAS VIDYOUT KUMAR YADAV v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./905/2026 · 2026-04-09
Anil Kumar Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 5647 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 5647 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
( 2026:JHHC:10166 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 905 of 2026
------ Vidyout Yadav @ Vidyout Kumar Yadav, aged about 27 years, Son of –Aditya Yadav, Resident of Vill –Hendiya, P.O. and P.S. –Tarasi, District –Palamau (Jharkhand).
… Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate
: Mr. Kumar Nishant, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Someshwar Roy, Addl. P.P. ------
Order No.06 Dated- 09.04.2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Bariyatu P.S. Case No.30 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 385/387 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in demanding extortion in the name of an extremist organization GLT. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. The learned counsel for the petitioner files the certified copy of the First Information Report of Lawalong P.S. Case No. 79 of 2018 and Lawalong P.S. Case No.15 of 2023 and submits that in neither of the two cases the petitioner is an accused; as claimed by the prosecution. It is then submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in para –13 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 04.12.2025, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 15 of the bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the informant or the witnesses of the case in any manner during
the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.
Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the above-named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released 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 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, in connection with Bariyatu P.S. Case No.30 of 2024 with the condition that the petitioner will co-operate with the trial of the case and will furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case, with further condition that he will not annoy or disturb the informant or the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
09.04.2026
Sonu/