VIJAY YADAV v. STATE OF JHARKHAND
Court: High Court of Jharkhand
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Jharkhand judgment dated 2026-05-07. VIJAY YADAV v. STATE OF JHARKHAND. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S. J) No. 294 of 2026 ---- 1. Vijay Yadav, Son of Late Chandradeo Yadav, aged about 45 years, 2. Bhola Kumar Yadav, son of Late Chandradeo yadav, aged about 28 years 3. Suchit Kumar yadav @ Sujit Yadav @ Suchit Kumar, aged about 21 years, Son of Lakhan Yadav. All above mentioned petitioners are resident of Village Kewal, P. O. & P. S. Bashisth Nagar, District Chatra …. …. Appellant(s) -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Binod Ganjhu, aged about 22 years, S/o Kedar Ganjhu, R/o Village Kewal, P. O. + P. S. Bashisth Nagar (Jori), District Chatra …. …. Respondent(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Appellants : Ms. Tanu Kumari, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sanat Kr. Jha, A. P. P. ----th 02/Dated: 07 May, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3.
The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 26. 02. 2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, SC/ST Cases, Chatra in A. B. P No. 306 of 2026 in connection with S. C/S. T Case No. 08 of 2018, arising out of Complaint Case No. 08 of 2018, for the offence under Sections 323 & 341 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1))(X)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants were earlier rejected on th merit by this Court, vide order dated 09 July, 2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (S. J) No. 92 of 2024 by stating that all the allegations of the offence under the SC/ST (PoA) Act appears to be made out and further, Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act prohibits grant of anticipatory bail. 5. It is the second attempt without any reason. 6. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to reconsider the prayer for anticipatory bail to the appellants once again.
Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby, rejected by following the mandate of Section 18 of SC/ST (PoA) Act. 7. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal stands dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar, J. ) th Dated: 07 May, 2026 Raja/- Uploaded on 11. 05. 2026 2. Criminal Appeal (S. J) No. 294 of 2026
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.