Allowed

Mitlal Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Sept 2026B.A./8491/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 394 IPC regarding robbery with injury and looting, the High Court of Jharkhand directed the release of the petitioner on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, subject to specific undertaking clauses.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is enlarged on bail with a bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding cooperation, mobile number, and witness protection.

Mitlal Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

[ 2026:JHHC:27653 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.8491 of 2026

¶3

------

¶4

Mitlal Yadav, aged about 41 years, son of Late Jitan Yadav, resident of village- Pawapuri, P.O. – Sariya, P.S. – Sariya, District – Giridih.

¶5

.... .... …. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

.... .... .... Opposite Party

¶9

------

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, Addl.P.P.

¶12

------

¶13

Order No:-02 Dated:-14-09-2026

¶14

Heard the parties.

¶15

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Jainagar P.S. Case No. 21 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed robbery and caused injury to the victim and looted Rs.70,000/- from the house and 5,000/- from the informant and also looted the jewelleries at the point of pistol and assaulted the wife of the informant, when she protested. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that though the petitioner is not named in the FIR but without putting him on T.I. Parade as mentioned in para-08 of the instant bail application, charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner but no witness has been examined as yet. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 11.06.2026 as mentioned in para-10 of the instant bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-12 of the instant bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case and also

¶17

undertakes not to annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶19

Considering the facts of this case, the above-named petitioner is directed to be enlarged 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 the learned S.D.J.M., Koderma in connection with Jainagar P.S. Case No. 21 of 2023 with the condition that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case and he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case.

¶20

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶21

Dated:- 14.09.2026 Saroj/

Mitlal Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mitlal 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