KAMLESH YADAV @ KAMLESH PRASAD YADAV v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./2479/2026 · 2026-04-08
Anil Kumar Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 5745 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 5745 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
( 2026:JHHC:10024 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 2479 of 2026
------ Kamlesh Yadav @ Kamlesh Prasad Yadav, aged about 23 years, son of Rajkumar Yadav, residence of Village – Nawadih, P.O. –Malda, P.S. –Gawan, District –Giridih, Jharkhand.
… Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Singh, Advocate ------
Order No.02 Dated- 08.04.2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Gawan P.S. Case No.91 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 140(3), 103(1), 238, 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons abducted the son of the informant namely Anand Kumar and committed his murder as he was under the impression that the deceased was having illicit relationship with his wife. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the direct allegation against the petitioner of committing the murder of the deceased after abducting him; there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released
on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the above-named petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
08.04.2026
Sonu/