B.A./9214/2026 of RAHUL KUMAR YADAV ALIAS RAHUL YADAV Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 1 October 2026

( 2026:JHHC:29613 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No. 9214 of 2026

Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Rahul Yadav, aged about 27 years, Son of Nakuldev Yadav, Res of-Village Badwar, P.O.-Daru, P.S.-Dist- Hazaribagh, (Jharkhand)

… … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Advocate

For the Opp. Party : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P.

For the Informant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Ram, Advocate

---

02/01.10.2026

Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 13.08.2026 in connection with Daru P.S. Case No. 59 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 349 of 2025, registered under Section 341/323/325/498A/34 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, now pending in the court of learned J.M, 1st Class, Hazaribagh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing charge for alleged offence under Section 341/323/325/498A/34 and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. He submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has further referred to the evidence of the victim which was made in the maintenance case. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner was earlier granted anticipatory bail, but his anticipatory bail was cancelled on account of the fact that the condition of bail was violated by the petitioner inasmuch as, it was alleged by the informant that the petitioner has been disturbing the informant victim. The order of cancellation of anticipatory bail is dated 07.08.2026. Thereafter, the petitioner has surrendered and he is in custody since 13.08.2026. He has also submitted that out of 12 witnesses, 8 witnesses have been examined. The victim has been visiting the Court from time to time, but she has not got herself examined so far.

4. Learned counsel for the Informant and opposite party- State ( 2026:JHHC:29613 )

2

have opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the reasons for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the petitioner speaks volumes with regard to the conduct of the petitioner and as the victim has not been examined so far, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.

5. Upon a query to the learned counsel for the informant-victim, it has been submitted that the victim and two relatives of victim and the I.O. are the witnesses which are remaining to be examined and the next date is on 15.10.2026.

6. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that on the next date, the victim and her family members will be produced before the Court for examination.

7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the allegation against the petitioner which led to cancellation of anticipatory bail of the petitioner and the victim having not been examined so far before the court, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

8. However, the counsel for the informant-victim has assured that they will produce the victim and her family members for examination on the next date i.e. 15.10.2026.

9. If the witnesses are not produced, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after three months.

10. Learned counsel for the state is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and the Director Prosecution so that the witnesses are promptly produced before the Court.

11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:01.10.2026 Nandini Date of Uploading: