Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9125/2026 of AMIT YADAV @ AMIT KUMAR YADAV @AMIT KUMAR Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND on 29 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.9125 of 2026 ------ Amit Yadav @ Amit Kumar Yadav @ Amit Kumar, Aged about 26 years, son of Banshraj Yadav, resident of Bighai More, P.O. & P.S. Sonaraithari, District Deoghar .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of 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:29243] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.9125 of 2026
------ Amit Yadav @ Amit Kumar Yadav @ Amit Kumar, Aged about 26 years, son of Banshraj Yadav, resident of Bighai More, P.O. & P.S. Sonaraithari, District Deoghar .... .... …. 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. Gautam Rakesh, Addl.P.P
------
Order No.02 Dated-29-09-2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Mohanpur P.S. Case No.60 of 2026 corresponding to S.T. Case No.241 of 2026 registered under Section 140(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, has abducted the informant and made a ransom call for Rs.1,60,000/- to the wife of the informant and the main allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner took the victim to the jungle and allowed him to be abducted by the co-accused Deepu Yadav and Banti Yadav. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-14 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is further submitted that the co-accused, with similar allegations, has already been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2026 passed in B.A. No.8878 of 2026. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 29.04.2026. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of abducting the victim for making ransom calls and realization of ransom and in view of direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioner, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as his chance of absconding and tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated-29.09.2026-Animesh/