Dismissed¶16

Deepak Kumar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Mar 2026B.A./9696/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Deepak Kumar Yadav bail rejected, Jharkhand HC, Anubha Rawat Choudhary J., 23.03.2026, B.A. 9696 of 2025; Gidhour P.S. Case No. 38/2025, offences under BNS 2023 Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 140(2), 351(3), 303(2), pending J.M. 1st Class Chatra; custody since 09.06.2025; TIP identification of petitioner by victim; ransom Rs. 9,00,000/- recovered from co-accused Ramesh Karmali; serious nature of allegation; bail not granted.

What did the court decide?

In reaching its decision the Court heard learned counsel for the parties and took into account the serious nature of the allegations against the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner had been identified in the TIP. ¶13

Deepak Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:JHHC:8077

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B.A. No. 9696 of 2025

¶4

Deepak Kumar Yadav, aged about 28 years, Son of Ram Chandra Yadav, resident of village Khetko, Nayadih Tola, P.O.-Khteko, P.s.-Peterwar, District Bokaro, Jharkhand … … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party ---

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶8

--For the Petitioner : Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate Ms. Shivani Shankar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Subodh Kumar Pandey, Advocate ---

¶9

06/23^rd March 2026

¶10

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Gidhour P.S. Case No. 38/2025 for the offence registered under Section 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 140 (2), 351(3), 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , now said to have been pending in the court of learned J. M. 1^st class, Chatra.

¶11

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in custody since 09.06.2025. She submits that the person who had identified the petitioner remained blind folded throughout and therefore he could not have identified the petitioner in TIP and therefore, the TIP has no relevance in this case. She submits that the FIR is against the unknown person.

¶12

3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that kidnapped person was later on released upon payment of Rs. 9,00,000/- which was recovered from the house of the co-accused namely, Ramesh Karmali and the victim has identified Ramesh Karmali as well as the petitioner in the TIP.

¶13

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the serious nature of allegation and that the petitioner has also been identified

¶14

¶15

2026:JHHC:8077

¶16

in TIP, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected.

¶17

5. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’.

¶18

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶19

Dated: 23.03.2026 Uploaded On: 25.03.2026 Mukul/-

¶20