Mukesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand

(2026:JHHC:9336)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.806 of 2026

------

Mukesh Kumar Yadav, Aged about – 30 years, S/o – Kedarnath Yadav, R/o Village Govindadih, P.O. + P.S.- Birni, District- Giridih, (Jharkhand) … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

… The State of Jharkhand Opposite Party

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. (Through V.C)

¶8

------

¶9

P R E S E N T

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶11

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶12

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to set aside the condition impugned in the order dated 24.06.2025 for releasing the vehicle in Criminal Revision No.39 of 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Giridih.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the truck bearing registration No. JH02AP 1415 which was involved in the accident of the informant’s brother and his cousin after being rashly and negligently driven causing injuries to them. The petitioner filed a petition for release of the said truck in his favour, which truck was seized in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No.15 of 2025 but the same was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Giridih. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed

¶14

¶15

Cr. M.P. No.806 of 2026

¶16

(2026:JHHC:9336)

¶17

Criminal Revision No.39 of 2025 and relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Deepak Kumar Soni vs. The State of Jharkhand passed in Cr.M.P. No.3458 of 2021 in which this Court in the facts of that case, directed for release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner, on furnishing an indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the court below and considering the facts of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Giridih, directed for release of the vehicle upon the petitioner depositing Rs.2,00,000/- in shape of fixed deposit.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the condition imposed is an onerous condition as there is nothing in the record to suggest that any claim case for compensation has been filed by anyone; as yet and submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish an indemnity bond to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No.39 of 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Giridih, be modified accordingly.

¶19

The learned Special Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer.

¶20

Considering the fact that there is no material in the record suggest that any case claiming compensation has been filed by anybody, in respect of the accident involving the truck in question this Court is of the view that imposing a condition thereby blocking and amount of ₹ 2 lakhs of the petitioner, appears to be an onerous condition. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No.39 of 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Giridih, is modified to the extent that the said truck

¶21

¶22

Cr. M.P. No.806 of 2026

¶23

(2026:JHHC:9336)

¶24

bearing registration No.JH02AP 1415 be released in favour of the petitioner upon the petitioner furnishing an indemnity bond of Rs.5,00,000/- with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Giridih to the effect that firstly the petitioner; failing which the sureties, shall pay the compensation if any, to be awarded to anyone, in any case involving the truck in question, to the extent of ₹ 5 lakhs and further undertaking that the petitioner shall not sale, mortgage or transfer the ownership of the vehicle during the pendency of the case nor allow anybody else than him to use the same and shall not change or tamper with the identification of the said truck in any manner during the pendency of the case; with any other condition, if any, to be imposed by the trial court.

¶25

This Cr.M.P. stands allowed to the aforesaid extent only.

¶26

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶27

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 02^nd of April, 2026 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 04/04/2026

¶28

¶29

Cr. M.P. No.806 of 2026

Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eklavya Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kundan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mohsim Sheikh Alias Mohsin Sheikh Alias Moshim Sheikh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sukumar Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anita Gorai @ Anita Kumari Alias Anita Grai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sarfraj Ali Alias Sarfaraj Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand