Prem Yadav @ Prem Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand ...... Opp. Party
2026 Latest Caselaw 2565 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Prem Yadav @ Prem Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand ...... Opp. Party on 1 April, 2026

Author: Rajesh Kumar

Bench: Rajesh Kumar

                                                        2026:JHHC:9085

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   B.A. No.1908 of 2026

       Prem Yadav @ Prem Kumar Yadav, aged about 28 years,
       son of Baburam Yadav @ Babu Lal Yadav, resident of
       Bhuiyadih, Gwala Basti, Agrico, P.O & P.S. - Agrico, Town
       - Jamshedpur, District - East Singhbhum.
                                            ...... Petitioner
                            Versus
       The State of Jharkhand                       ......       Opp. Party
                                 ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sourav Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P

--------

03/Dated: 01st April, 2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State.

2. The applicant, who is in custody since 12.11.2025, has approached this Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Sidhgora Town P.S. Case No.144 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 191(2)/ 191(3)/ 190/ 109(2)/ 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that complete set of F.I.R along with its enclosures have been annexed with the present bail application and there is no suppression on his/ her part.

Innocence of the applicant has been claimed and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted that there was scuffle during gambling on the occasion of Diwali. The specific allegation of firing is upon the co-accused. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been made.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail stating that there is eye witness to the incident and the weapon of crime has been recovered on the confession of this applicant.

5. Considering the material available on record, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the applicant is, hereby, rejected.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) 01st April, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/-

Uploaded on 01.04.2026