MD. LIYAKAT v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Court: High Court of Jharkhand
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Jharkhand judgment dated 2026-05-07. MD. LIYAKAT v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 147 of 2026 1. Md. Liyakat, aged about 77 years, sonof Md. Hussain 2. Riyasat Hussain, aged about 40 years, son of Md. Liyakat 3. Heena Khatoon @ Heena Praveen aged about 23 years, daughter of Md. Liyakat @ Md. Liyhakat wife of Javed Khan All residents of Garwan Patti Kitadih, P. O. and P. S. Parsudih, District- East Singhbhum (Jamshedpur) ...... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand . …. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners :Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, A. P. P. 03/ 07. 05. 2026: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Parsudih P. S. Case No. 147 of 2025, registered under sections 115(2)/126(2)/351(2)/352/109(1)/3(5) of BNS pending in the Court of learned A. C. J. M, Jamshedpur. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that husband has lodged the case against the petitioner no. 1 who happens to be the father-in-law, petitioner no. 2 happens to be brother-in-law and petitioner no. 3 happens to be wife of informant. He next submits that false allegation of assault has been made against the petitioners however, no injury has been found on the body of the informant. He next submits that husband of the petitioner no. 3 who is informant is a drug peddler and in view of that petitioner no. 3 does not reside along with him. He further submits that false allegation has been made of firing on the instruction of petitioner no. 3 however, there is no injury pursuant to firing. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioners may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that allegations of assault are there and petitioners are father-in-law, brother-in-law and wife of the informant.
He next submits that allegation of firing is also there. 5. On query, learned counsel for the State fairly submits that in the case diary injury aspect has not come. 6. Considering that allegation of assault is there however, in the case diary injury has not been found. Further allegation of firing is also there however pursuant to firing no injury has been reported in the case diary. In para 11 of the petition it has been disclosed that informant is a drug peddler and he has been charged in Parsudih P. S. Case No. 231 of 2022. 7. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the above named, petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned court within three weeks from today and in the event of their surrender / arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
25,000/- (twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned A. C. J. M, Jamshedpur, in connection with Parsudih P. S. Case No. 147 of 2025, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of B. N. S. S, 2023. Dt. 07. 05. 2026 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. ) satyarthi-
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.