THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 224 of 2026 -----

1. Uday Yadav @ Uday Prasad Yadav, Aged 45 years, 2. Harihar Prasad Yadav, Aged 42 years both are Sons of Ram Janam Yadav; Both are R/o At & P.O. – Makri, P.S. Bhawnathpur &

District- Garhwa … … … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … … … Opp. Party -------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI -------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Apurv Krishna, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.

------

Order No. 04/Dated 13th February, 2026

1. The instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being Cr.M.P. No.

224 of 2026, has been filed seeking for extension of the time granted by this Court for the surrender of the petitioners before the court concerned, in compliance of the order dated 16.10.2024 passed in A.B.A. No. 6438 of 2024.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by this Court in A.B.A. No. 6438 of 2024 vide order dated 16th October, 2024, whereby this Court granted four weeks’ time to surrender before the court concerned. However, the petitioners could not surrender within the stipulated time, as such, the petitioners filed Cr.M.P. No. 635 of 2025 seeking extension for the period for surrender, and this Court, vide order dated 21.03.2025, extended the period of surrender of the petitioners by one week.

3. He further apprised this Court that, on the second occasion as well, due to a lack of communication, the petitioners were unaware of the order passed by this Court for granting extension of time, therefore, they could not surrender before the court concerned. On this premise, prayer has been made for a further extension of one week time for the surrender of the petitioners.

4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer of the petitioners on the premise that this is the second occasion on which an extension of time has been sought for, which clearly reflects the conduct of the petitioners, who are very casual and having no regard for the orders of this Court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

6. This Court finds that, vide order dated 16th October, 2024 passed in A.B.A. No. 6438 of 2024, both the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail, and it was directed that they shall surrender before the court concerned within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order by the Court concerned.

7. The records further reveal that the petitioners did not surrender within the stipulated time on the ground/plea of non- communication of anticipatory bail order to them, and they preferred Cr.M.P. No. 635 of 2025 and sought an extension of time to surrender before the court concerned and vide order dated 21.03.2025, this Court extended the period of surrender before the court concerned by seven working days.

8. There is no plausible explanation has been made in the present Cr.M.P. regarding the non-compliance of the order dated 21.03.2025 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 635 of 2025 whereby period of surrender of petitioners extended, due to which the petitioners could not surrender within the stipulated time for seven working days.

9. A simple plea has been taken on behalf of the petitioners that the order could not be communicated to petitioners, and as they had gone outside the district, therefore they could not surrender and furnish bail bonds before the court concerned in compliance of the order dated 21.03.2025 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 635 of 2025.

10. This Court, in Cr.M.P. No. 635 of 2025, granted an extension of time, whereby time period extended for seven working days for the petitioners to surrender and furnish bail bonds before the court concerned and plea has been taken that on account of lack of communication petitioners were unaware about the order of extension of time but it has not been contended that when petitioners came to know about the order dated 21.03.2025 in Cr.M.P. No. 635 of 2025 and what prevented them to not approach