Partly allowed

Pintu Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Sept 2026B.A./7948/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Ranchi heard a bail application by a 26-year-old man and his 63-year-old father in Katkamdag P.S. Case No. 98 of 2026 involving injuries and witchcraft allegations. The court rejected bail for the son but granted it to the senior father conditioned on sureties and court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected for Petitioner No. 1; Bail granted to Petitioner No. 2 on bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties and strict conditions.

Pintu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:27804

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B.A. No. 7948 of 2026

¶4

Pintu Yadav, aged about 26 years, Son of Jhubar Yadav, Resident of Village Chope, P.O. Chope, P.S. Simaria, District-Chatra, Jharkhand.

¶5

Jhgubar Yadav @ Jhubar Yadav @ Koleshwar Yadav, aged about 63 years, Son of Late Badhan Yadav, Resident of Village-Chope, P.O.Chope, P.S. Simaria, District-Chatra, Jharkhand.

¶6

… … Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

¶9

¶10

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kunal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, Advocate

¶13

03 /15.09.2026

¶14

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶15

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the petitioners are in custody since 10.06.2026 in connection with Katkamdag P.S. Case No. 98 of 2026, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 109(1), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 2001, pending in the learned court learned J.M., 1st Class, Hazaribagh.

¶16

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both father and son are in custody since 10.06.2026, who are petitioners before this Court, on the allegation that they were pressurizing the informant of the case to withdraw her previous complaint regarding atrocities against her and she was being called daain . He has further submitted that there is an allegation against the petitioners that they fired at the victim. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that charge sheet has already been submitted, the petitioners have no criminal antecedent and they may be enlarged on bail.

¶17

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the victim is not safe inasmuch as there is an allegation that the petitioners have been

¶18

¶19

2026:JHHC:27804

¶20

pressurizing her to withdraw her previous complaint. He has submitted that since the victim has not been examined, the petitioners may not be enlarged on bail. The victim also suffered injury due to fire arms.

¶21

5. To this, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is specific allegation only against petitioner No.1 of using fire arms and so far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, he is already 63 years of age and therefore, the petitioner No.2 at least may be enlarged on bail.

¶22

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is allegation against the petitioner No.1 of using fire arm leading to injury of the victim , this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner No.1 on bail. Accordingly, this bail application as against petitioner No.1 is hereby rejected.

¶23

7. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, he appears to be at advanced age and therefore the petitioner No.2 is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M 1^st Class, Hazaribagh in connection with Katkamdag P.S. Case No. 98 of 2026 on the following conditions:

¶24

(i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner No.2.

¶25

(ii) The other bailor should be his close relative.

¶26

(iii) The petitioner No.2 will attend the court on each and every date and on account of his single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner No.2.

¶27

(iv) The petitioner No.2 will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court.

¶28

(v) The petitioner No.2 shall fully co-operate with the

¶29

¶30

2026:JHHC:27804

¶31

proceedings before the learned court below.

¶32

8. The instant bail application is partly allowed only with respect to petitioner no.2.

¶33

9. Let a copy of this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’.

¶34

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶35

15.09.2026 Rakesh/Uploaded on:-16.09.2026

¶36

Pintu Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases