Raju Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Raju Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release of the petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned JMFC, Latehar in connection with Netarhat P.S. Case No. 12/2024, subject to conditions of not annoying or disturbing the informant or witnesses, co-operating with the trial, and furnishing mobile phone number and Aadhar Card copy with an undertaking not to change the mobile number during trial.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, accused in Netarhat P.S. Case No. 12/2024 (offences under Sections 190/191/126/115/117(4)/324(3)/326(f)/352 of B.N.S. and Section 17 of C.L.A. Act), should be admitted to bail.

Court's answer

Considering the submissions of the learned counsels and the facts stated, the court is inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

Ratio / Principle

The court below is directed to release the petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned JMFC, Latehar, in connection with Netarhat P.S. Case No. 12/2024.

Key takeaways

Bail is subject to the conditions that the petitioner will not annoy or disturb the informant or the other witnesses in any manner during the trial and will co-operate with the trial.ratio¶14
Additional condition: the petitioner must furnish his mobile phone number and a photocopy of his Aadhar Card in the court below, with an undertaking not to change the mobile phone number during the trial.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Application allowed (High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, B.A. No. 3962 of 2026, decided 13.05.2026 by Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.): Petitioner Raju Yadav (cause title also lists Chandranath Yadav as co-petitioner), accused in Netarhat P.S. Case No. 12/2024 instituted for offences punishable under Sections 190/191/126/115/117(4)/324(3)/326(f)/352 of B.N.S. and Section 17 of C.L.A. Act, and in jail custody since 27.02.2026, was ordered released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned JMFC, Latehar, subject to the conditions that he will not annoy or disturb the informant or other witnesses during trial, will co-operate with the trial, and will furnish his mobile phone number and a photocopy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking not to change the mobile phone number during the trial. Counsel had submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and that the charge sheet was filed without a TIP.

[ 2026:JHHC:14719 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3962 of 2026

Raju Yadav, aged about 42 years, son of Late Vishun Yadav,

Chandranath Yadav, aged about 48 years, son of Late Bishun Yadav, both are residents of village- Medharua, P.O. & P.S.Mahuwadand, Dist.- Latehar, Jharkhand … Petitioners Versus

The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shahid Yunus, Adv. For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad , Addl.. PP

02 / 13.05.2026

Heard the parties.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Netarhat P.S Case no-12/2024 instituted for the offences punishable under Section 190/ 191/ 126/ 115/ 117(4)/ 324(3)/ 326(f)/ 352/ of B.N.S. and Section 17 of C.L.A. Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, claiming themselves to be the members of CPI Maoists squad damaged, the solar plates, 08 CVs and CCUs of the BSNL Tower in Durup and also set fire to all the CCUs, cables and beaten and threatened to kill employees working there. It is next submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and without putting the petitioner on TIP, as mentioned in para 9 of the Bail Application, charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 27.02.2026, as mentioned in para 17 of this bail application. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the trial of the case and undertakes not to annoy or disturb the informant or the other witness of the case in any manner during trial of the case, hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering submissions of learned counsels and the facts as stated above, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Hence, the court below is directed to release the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned JMFC, Latehar in connection with Netarhat P.S Case no-12/2024 with the condition that the petitioner will not annoy or disturb the informant or the other witness of the case in any manner during trial of the case and will co-operate with the trial of the case and will furnish mobile phone number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that he will not change the mobile phone number during the trial of the case.

( ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)

Dated 13.05.2026

Smita/-