[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Mahabir Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opp. Party on 19 February, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2026:JHHC:4973
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ABA No.954 of 2026
1. Mahabir Yadav, aged about 65 years, S/O Late Bhuneshwar Yadav
2. Naresh Yadav, aged about 60 years, S/O Late Bhuneshwar Yadav
3. Santosh Yadav, aged about 34 years, S/O Late Arjun Yadav
4. Sanjay Yadav, aged about 42 years, S/O Mahabir Yadav
All are resident of village-Lichari, P.O.-Jori, P.S. Bashishthnagar, District
- Chatra .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opp. Party
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners : Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
------
2/19.02.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioners and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and informant.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that
petitioner No. 1 has already been arrested, in view of that, she is not
pressing the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner No.1.
3. As such, the prayer of anticipatory bail of petitioner No.1
Mahabir Yadav is rejected as not pressed.
4. She then submits that now the anticipatory bail is surviving only
for the petitioner Nos.2 to 4.
5. The surviving petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with the Complaint case No. 516/2025, which is
subsequently converted into Bashishthnagar P.S. Case No. 88/2025,
registered for the offense under Section 316(2) & 318(4) of BNS
2023, pending in the court of learned CJM, Chatra.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in
para-2 of the complaint, it is stated that Bandhu Mahto has two sons
2026:JHHC:4973
namely Bhubneshwar Mahto and Buta Mahto and in para 5 of his
complaint, he has stated that the sale deed No. 891 is in the joint
name of Buta Mahto and Bhuneshwar Mahto contrary to that he is
showing one Vanshavali, which shows that there are three sons of
Bandhu Mahto and the property is jointly in the name of three sons.
She also submits that false allegations of taking the amount of
compensation is made by all the cousins and on these backgrounds,
the complaint case has been filed, which has been converted into FIR
by the order of the learned court.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the State and the informant have
jointly opposed the prayer and submits that by way of showing
wrong genealogy, the part of the compensation amount of the
complainant has also been taken by these petitioners and in view of
that, the anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.
8. Considering that the said compensation amount has been paid to
the petitioners by none other than the land acquisition officer, there is
dispute with regard to genealogy and that can be subject of trial, both
the sides are having the relationship of uncle, brother and cousin
brother respectively in that view of the matter, the petitioner No.2 to
4, above named are directed to surrender before the learned Court
within two weeks and the learned Court shall release the petitioners
on such terms and condition and sureties, the learned Court may
deem fit and proper.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
19.02.2026
R.Kumar
