Dismissed

Binod Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Sept 2026A.B.A./4684/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a criminal case involving assault and forgery charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging false implication during a land measurement dispute. The High Court, finding direct allegations of assault and grievous injury supported by witness statements and the injury report, rejected the prayer for bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

Binod Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

[ 2026:JHHC:27426]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 4684 of 2026

¶3

Binod Yadav, aged 47 years, Son of Khemchand Yadav, Resident of Village Kasoiya, Post Office Machhli, P.S. Bhelwaghati, District Giridih.

¶4

..... … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

..... … Opposite Party --------

¶8

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶9

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. P.C. Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, Advocate. ------

¶10

03/ 11.09.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant.

¶11

The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Bhelwaghati P.S. Case No. 10 of 2026, registered for the offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2) 118(2) 109 333, 76, 303(2) 352/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there are two injuries, out of which, one is simple and one is grievous and further both the sides are agnates and altercation took place at the time of taking the measurement of the land. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioner.

¶13

Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant have jointly opposed the prayer and submit that there is direct allegation against this petitioner of making assault, pursuant to that the father-in-law of the informant has received grievous injury. On these grounds, they submit that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.

¶14

On perusal of the FIR, it transpires that there is direct

¶15

-1-

¶16

[ 2026:JHHC:27426]

¶17

allegation against the petitioner and further in paras-8 and 9 of the case diary, the witnesses have supported the allegation of the petitioner and in para-12 of the case diary, the witness has stated about the direct allegation of this petitioner and further in para-22 of the case diary, the evidence of injured witness has been taken, in which, he has also taken the name of this petitioner. In para-29 of the case diary, it has been stated that no external injury was found, however, in para-47 of the case diary, the injury report is there, which has been issued by the Deori Hospital and the injury is said to be grievous.

¶18

In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

¶19

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶20

Dated:-11.09.2026 Amitesh/-

¶21

-2-

Binod Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases