Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9282/2026 of SONU KUMAR ALIAS SONU YADAV Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 5 October 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9282 of 2026 ------ Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Yadav, aged about 24 years, son of Dhaneshwar Ray, resident of Purani Gas Godam, Ojha Market, Hesal, P.O.-Hesal, P.S.-Sukhdeonagar, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus The State of
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:29701 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9282 of 2026
------ Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Yadav, aged about 24 years, son of Dhaneshwar Ray, resident of Purani Gas Godam, Ojha Market, Hesal, P.O.-Hesal, P.S.-Sukhdeonagar, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand … Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl. P.P.
(Through Video Conferencing) ------ Order No.02 Dated- 05.10.2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No.23 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 61(2)/ 318(4)/ 109(1)/ 118(2)/351(2)/352/3(5)/111(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 25(1-B)a/26/37/35 of Arms Act.
This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail and earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.08.2026 in B.A. No. 7300 of 2026. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner attempted to murder the informant by firing upon him on the instruction of Sanjay Pandey causing injuries on his hand. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and though charge sheet has been submitted in this case but no witness has been examined as yet. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 09.04.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 20 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the co-accused persons with similar allegation have already been admitted to bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the allegation against the petitioner stands in a different footing then that of the co-accused persons as there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that it is the petitioner who fired upon the informant causing gunshot injury to the informant. It is then submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that in view of criminal antecedents of the petitioner being involved in four other cases as well as direct allegation against the petitioner in this case, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail as well as his criminal antecedents, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
05.10.2026 Gunjan-