Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9158/2026 of BIRENDRA YADAV ALIAS BIRENDRA KR YADAV @ BIRENDRA YADAV Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 30 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9158 of 2026 ------ Birendra Yadav @ Birendra Kr. Yadav @ Birendra Kr., Son of Hiraman Mahto, aged about 24 years, resident of Village – Lodhna, P.O. & P.S. –Margomunda, District –Deoghar (Jharkhand). …
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:29492 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9158 of 2026
------ Birendra Yadav @ Birendra Kr. Yadav @ Birendra Kr., Son of Hiraman Mahto, aged about 24 years, resident of Village – Lodhna, P.O. & P.S. –Margomunda, District –Deoghar (Jharkhand).
… Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 30.09.2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Margomunda P.S. Case No.05 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 310(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.
The learned counsel for the petitioner files a supplementary affidavit. Keep the same in the record.
This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail. Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.07.2026 in B.A. No. 6275 of 2026. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed dacoity and looted the motorcycle and mobile phone of the informant at the point of pistol. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he has been in custody since 06.01.2026 as has been mentioned in para –12 of the bail application. It is next submitted that though the petitioner was put on Test Identification Parade but the informant could not identify him as is evident from the chart of T.I. Parade, the certified copy of which has been annexed with the annexure-A at page no. 4
of the supplementary affidavit 30.09.2026. 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 Addl. 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, Madhupur (Deoghar), in connection with Margomunda P.S. Case No.05 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.)
30.09.2026
Sonu/