Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7125 (JHR)

RAVI RANJAN KUMAR YADAV ALIAS RAVI RANJAN KUMAR ALIAS RAVIRANJAN KUMAR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

A.B.A./1972/2026 · 2026-04-24

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2026:JHHC:12065 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 1972 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1972 of 2026 Ravi Ranjan Kumar Yadav @ Ravi Ranjan Kumar @ Raviranjan Kumar, son of Rohan Yadav, aged about 22 years, resident of Village- Neema, Nawatanr, P.O. & P.S. Naudiha Bazar, Dist. Palamu, Jharkhand … Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Yadav, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P. ----- 04/24.04.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Ranchi Sadar P.S. Case No.597 of 2025, registered for the offence under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class-IV, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the deceased has committed suicide and the petitioner is in no way involved in the said act of the deceased. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that from the CDR, it is transpired that the petitioner was in constant touch with the deceased. 5. The informant has alleged suspicion that the petitioner was mentally torturing the deceased to take that extreme step. It has come in the order of the learned Sessions Judge that the petitioner and deceased were frequently talking with each other and the petitioner had called the deceased on her phone just prior to the occurrence, which has come in their CDR and also stated in para 15 of the case diary. ( 2026:JHHC:12065 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 1972 of 2026 6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, as such, his prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. 7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 24th April, 2026 Ajay/