2026:JHHC:5807 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11636 of 2025 1. Manoj Yadav, aged about 44 years, son of Doman Yadav. 2. Sanjay Yadav, aged about 54 years, son of Doman Yadav. 3. Upendra Yadav, aged about 20 years, son of Sanjay Yadav. All are residents of Village – Mahadev Amba, P.O. and P.S. – Sonaraithari, District – Deoghar, Jharkhand. ….. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P. --------- Order No. 03/Dated: 26th February, 2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners have been made accused in connection with Sonaraithari P.S. Case No. 51 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 126 (2), 115 (2), 117 (2), 109 (1), 74, 303 (2), 352, 351 (2) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 3. It has been alleged that the petitioners are the nephews of the informant and there is dispute over the share in the bamboo plantation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that due to family dispute sudden scuffle took place between the parties and there is exchange of assault, wherein Guddu Kumar Yadav and Pankaj Yadav had sustained injury from the informant side. The injuries are found to be grievous in nature caused by hard blunt substance. Therefore, offence under Section 109 (1) of the B.N.S. is not attracted in this case. Petitioners are under litigating terms also. Petitioners undertake to co-operate in trial of the case and also abide by all terms and conditions which may be imposed in the matter of granting bail to the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners may be extended the privilege of bail. 2026:JHHC:5807 5. Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and has submitted that nasal bone of Guddu Yadav was fractured and opined to be grievous in nature. Therefore, petitioners do not deserve the privilege of bail. 6. Considering the nature of allegation and the injury sustained by the informant members, I am inclined to release the above-named petitioners, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioners named above, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Deoghar, in connection with Sonaraithari P.S. Case No. 51 of 2025. 7. The bail application is hereby allowed. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) February 26, 2026 Sunil/