Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8088/2026 of NITISH KUMAR @ NITESH KUMAR YADAV Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 5 October 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8088 of 2026 ------ Nitish Kumar @ Nitesh Kumar Yadav, aged about 24 years, son of Nundeo Yadav, resident of Village Amghata, P.O. –M. Chikaniya and P.S. Saraiyahat, District –Dumka, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The
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:29772 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8088 of 2026
------ Nitish Kumar @ Nitesh Kumar Yadav, aged about 24 years, son of Nundeo Yadav, resident of Village Amghata, P.O. –M. Chikaniya and P.S. Saraiyahat, District –Dumka, Jharkhand.
… Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate For the State
: Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P. ------ Order No.03 Dated- 05.10.2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Saraiyahat P.S. Case No.67 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 483 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed dacoity and looted the articles he purchased through an online platform which was to be delivered by the informant without paying the money due and payable by him and also looting 21 articles of the informant. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in para –10 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 19.05.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 13 of the bail application. It is then submitted that though charge has been framed in this case but no witness has been examined so far. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertakes that he will not 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 admitted to bail.
The learned Spl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.
Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the above-named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released 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 learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dumka, in connection with Saraiyahat P.S. Case No.67 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 483 of 2026 with the condition that the petitioner will co-operate with the trial of the case and will furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case, with further condition that he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
05.10.2026
Sonu/