Nikki Yadav Alias Akash Yadav Alias Mukhiya Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Nikki Yadav Alias Akash Yadav Alias Mukhiya Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, in custody since 19.08.2025 in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No.80 of 2025, should be enlarged on regular bail, given his claimed implication through a co-accused's confession and the 19 criminal antecedents reported against him.

Court's answer

On perusal of the record, the Court found that the earlier bail order of 11.02.2026 had been passed on consideration that there was no criminal antecedent, the order of 14.01.2026 in B.A. No.11283 of 2025 disclosed that the applicant was roped in on an allegation of membership of a particular gang, and in the present case, apart from the material, 19 criminal antecedents had been reported against the applicant.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the above facts, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage and rejected the prayer for bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail application (B.A No.11199 of 2025) by Nikki Yadav @ Akash Yadav @ Mukhiya, in custody since 19.08.2025 in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No.80 of 2025 (Sections 324(5)/326(f)/111(3)/111(4)/308(4)/308(5)/61(2), BNS 2023; Section 27, Arms Act), pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar — High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Rajesh Kumar, J.), decided 18.02.2026. Counsel submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R., has been roped in on the basis of a co-accused's confession, was in judicial custody on the alleged date of occurrence, and relied upon earlier bail orders dated 11.02.2026 (B.A. No.12024 of 2025) and 14.01.2026 (B.A. No.11283 of 2025). Learned counsel for the State opposed, reporting 19 criminal antecedents. The Single Judge observed that the 11.02.2026 order rested on absence of criminal antecedent and the 14.01.2026 order disclosed a gang-membership allegation, and that in the present case 19 criminal antecedents stood reported against the applicant; accordingly, not inclined to enlarge him on bail at this stage, the Court rejected the prayer for bail.

2026:JHHC:4650

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No.11199 of 2025

Nikki Yadav @ Akash Yadav @ Mukhiya, aged about 25 years, son of Late Murari Yadav, resident of Village – Duruwa, P.O & P.S. - Latehar, District - Latehar.

…… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

For the Petitioner : Mr. H. K. Shikarwar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P ---------

03/Dated: 18th February, 2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State.

2. The applicant, who is in custody since 19.08.2025, has approached this Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No.80 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 324(5)/ 326(f)/ 111(3)/ 111(4)/ 308(4)/ 308(5)/ 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that complete set of F.I.R along with its enclosures have been annexed with the present bail application and there is no suppression on his/ her part.

Innocence of the applicant has been claimed and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R and he has been roped in on the basis of confession of the coaccused and except that there is no other material against him. It has further been submitted that on the alleged date of occurrence, this applicant was in judicial custody. Further, he has relied upon the orders dated 11.02.2026 and 14.01.2026, passed in B.A. Nos.12024 of 2025 and 11283 of 2025. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been made.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail stating that this applicant has 19 criminal antecedents.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from

- 1 - B.A. No.11199 of 2025

2026:JHHC:4650

perusal of record, it appears that order dated 11.02.2026 has been passed on consideration that there is no criminal antecedent and so far as order dated 14.01.2026, passed in B.A. No.11283 of 2025 is concerned, it discloses that he was roped in the case with the allegation that he was member of a particular gang.

In the present case, apart from the material, 19 criminal antecedents have been reported against this applicant. 6. Considering the above facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail, at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the applicant is, hereby, rejected.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

18^th February, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/Uploaded on 19.02.2026

- 2 -

B.A. No.11199 of 2025