Dismissed¶14

Prem Yadav @ Prem Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Apr 2026B.A./1908/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi — B.A. No.1908 of 2026 — Prem Yadav @ Prem Kumar Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand — regular bail application rejected at this stage — offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(2), 61(2) BNS, 2023 and Section 27 Arms Act — Sidhgora Town P.S. Case No.144 of 2025, pending before Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur — applicant in custody since 12.11.2025 — State cited eye witness and recovery of weapon on applicant's confession — Rajesh Kumar, J. — decided 01 April 2026.

What did the court decide?

Considering the material available on record, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage, and the prayer for bail was rejected. ¶14

Prem Yadav @ Prem Kumar Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:JHHC:9085

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.1908 of 2026

¶3

Prem Yadav @ Prem Kumar Yadav, aged about 28 years, son of Baburam Yadav @ Babu Lal Yadav, resident of Bhuiyadih, Gwala Basti, Agrico, P.O & P.S. - Agrico, Town – Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum.

¶4

…… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand …... Opp. Party --------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sourav Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P --------

¶8

03/Dated: 01st April, 2026

¶9

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

¶10

2. The applicant, who is in custody since 12.11.2025, has approached this Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Sidhgora Town P.S. Case No.144 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 191(2)/ 191(3)/ 190/ 109(2)/ 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

¶11

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.

¶12

Innocence of the applicant has been claimed and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted that there was scuffle during gambling on the occasion of Diwali. The specific allegation of firing is upon the co-accused. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been made.

¶13

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail stating that there is eye witness to the incident and the weapon of crime has been recovered on the confession of this applicant.

¶14

5. Considering the material available on record, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the applicant is, hereby, rejected.

¶15

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶16

01^st April, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/Uploaded on 01.04.2026

Prem Yadav @ Prem Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Yadav @ Prem Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaykant Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Renu Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Mohan Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikash Ganjhu @ Dashrath Ganjhu Vs State of Jharkhand

Abir Mian Alias Ibrahim Mian Alias Ibra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Karandeep Alias Karandeep Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand