Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9098/2026 of ARVIND YADAV ALIAS ARVIND KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 28 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9098 of 2026 Arvind Yadav @ Arvind Kumar, aged about 23 years, son of Kuldev Yadav, resident of Village Pastar, P.Ο.- Chikiniya, P.S. - Saraiyahaht, District -Dumka … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp.
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:29290] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9098 of 2026
Arvind Yadav @ Arvind Kumar, aged about 23 years, son of Kuldev Yadav, resident of Village Pastar, P.Ο.- Chikiniya, P.S. - Saraiyahaht, District -Dumka
… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
… Opp. Party
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Ms. J. Mazumdar Adv. For the State : Ms. Mohua Palit, Addl.PP
02 / 28.09.2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Sessions Trial Case no. 190 of 2026, arising out of Saraiyahat P.S. Case No. 67 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. Case no. 483 of 2026 instituted under Section 392 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed dacoity and is the habitual receiver of stolen property. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that though the petitioner is not named in the FIR but without putting him under T.I. Parade as mentioned in para-16 of the instant bail application, charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent, as mentioned in paragraph 21 of the bail application. It is next submitted that without putting the petitioner on TIP, as mentioned in para 16 of the Bail Application, chargesheet has been submitted
against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 20.05.2026 , as mentioned in para 22 of this bail application. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case and undertakes not to annoy or disturb the informant or the other witness of the case in any manner during trial of the case. It is next submitted that the co- accused with similar allegations has already been admitted on bail by this court vide order dated 09.09.2026 passed in B.A. No. 8419 of 2026 hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. Learned Addl. P.P. opposed the prayer for bail. Considering submissions of learned counsels and the facts as stated above, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Hence, the court below is directed to release the petitioner 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 Additional sessions Judge V, Dumka in connection with Sessions Trial Case no. 190 of 2026, arising out of Saraiyahat P.S. Case No. 67 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. Case no. 483 of 2026 with the condition that the petitioner will not annoy or disturb the informant or the other witness of the case in any manner during trial of the case and will co-operate with the trial of the case and will furnish mobile phone number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that he will not change the mobile phone number during the trial of the case.
(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Dated 28.09.2026
Smita/-