Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8217/2026 of SUVINDRA YADAV Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND on 24 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8217 of 2026 Suvindra Yadav, aged about 42 years, S/o – Late Arjun Yadav, R/o – Oar Salaiya, P.S. + P.O. – Sherghati, District – Gaya, Bihar. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite
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:28819
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8217 of 2026
Suvindra Yadav, aged about 42 years, S/o – Late Arjun Yadav, R/o – Oar Salaiya, P.S. + P.O. – Sherghati, District – Gaya, Bihar.
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate
For the State
: Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, APP
---
06/24.09.2026
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with S.T. No.184/2025 corresponding to Patratu (Bhadaninagar) P.S. Case No.245/2025, G.R. No.903/2025 registered under Sections 103(1), 64, 66 of BNS, 2023 now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – I, Ramgarh.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case merely because he happens to be the owner and driver of the truck. The learned counsel submits that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the informant’s wife had left the house to attend one Satsang programme but she did not return during night. In spite of search, they were not able to find her. However, after some time, the body was recovered near the overbridge, and upon examining the CCTV footage, it was revealed that an unknown truck driver had forcibly taken the informant’s wife into the bushes and committed rape and murder of the victim. The learned counsel submits that the CCTV footage was not enough to implicate the petitioner for the alleged offence.
4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and on his confession, the clothes and slippers were recovered from the truck. He further submits that the trial is going on 2026:JHHC:28819
and out of 10 witnesses, 3 have already been examined and the next date in the case is 06.10.2026.
5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the materials collected during investigation and also the confessional statement of the petitioner leading to recovery and that the trial is going on, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
6. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:24.09.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:29.09.2026