Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9142/2026 of TULSI YADAV Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 7 October 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9142 of 2026 Tulsi Yadav aged about 30 years, son of Bhum Mahto, Resident of village Sanwadiya, Dumriya, P.O. and P.S. Mohanpur, District- Deoghar … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
( 2026:JHHC:30069 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9142 of 2026
Tulsi Yadav aged about 30 years, son of Bhum Mahto, Resident of village Sanwadiya, Dumriya, P.O. and P.S. Mohanpur, District- Deoghar
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …
… Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, APP
---
04/07.10.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Counter affidavit filed during the court proceeding is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 90 of 2026 for the offences registered under Sections 111 (2) (b), 111(3), 111(4), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 66(B), 66(C), 66(D) and 84(C) of the Information and Technology Amendment Act, 2008, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-cyber-crime- special court, Deoghar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 14.06.2026 and charge sheet has been submitted. One mobile and one SIM Card alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner standing in the name of the petitioner but there is no crime link and no victim has been identified. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail, however, the aforesaid submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner is not in dispute.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and charge sheet has already been submitted, the petitioner above named is directed to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.
( 2026:JHHC:30069 )
2
25,000/- (Rs. Twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge- II-cum-cyber-crime-special court, Deoghar, in connection with Deoghar (Cyber) P.S. Case No. 90 of 2026, on the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner.
(ii) The other bailor should be his close relative.
(iii) The petitioner 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.
(iv) The petitioner 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.
(v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned court below.
6. Let this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e- mail.
7. The instant bail application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 07.10.2026 Uploaded on 09.10.2026 Binit/