Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9118/2026 of VINOD YADAV ALIAS VINOD KUMAR YADAV ALIAS BINOD KUMAR YADAV Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 29 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9118 of 2026 Vinod Yadav @ Vinod Kumar Yadav @ Binod Kumar Yadav aged about 45 year son of Heman Yadav, resident of village Ludhiya, Post office & Police Station Gidhour, District- Chatra, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus
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:29269
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9118 of 2026
Vinod Yadav @ Vinod Kumar Yadav @ Binod Kumar Yadav aged about 45 year son of Heman Yadav, resident of village Ludhiya, Post office & Police Station Gidhour, District- Chatra, Jharkhand.
… … Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand
… … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
05/29.09.2026
Learned counsel for the petitioner is present.
2. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State Mr. Achinto Sen, APP, is also present.
3. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 25.07.2026 in connection with S.T. Case No. 285 of 2026 arising out of Gidhour P.S. Case No. 35 of 2026, registered under Sections 115(1), 126(2), 117(2), 109, 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Additional Session Judge III, Chatra.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there is land dispute between the parties. He submits that as per the allegation, the informant happens to be the close relative of the petitioner and his family members and there is land dispute between the parties. There is a dispute with regard to one government hand pump, which is present in the land of the informant of the case.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation with respect to all the three persons named in the First Information Report and petitioner is one of them. He submits that charge sheet has already been submitted and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. He submits that charges have also been framed.
7. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner happens to be residing in the
2026:JHHC:29269
2
neighbourhood of the victim and the victim had suffered grievous head injuries pursuant to the alleged offence. The victim was residing with her children as her husband had gone out of station for work. He has also submitted that the petitioner has numerous criminal antecedents as mentioned in the impugned order itself. He submits that the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.
8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the direct allegation against the petitioner, who also has numerous criminal antecedents, and the victim, who is also the informant of the case, suffered grievous injury on her head due to the assault, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:29.09.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:01.10.2026