RAHUL YADAV vs THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ED Advocate - AMIT KUMAR DAS, ,DR. (MRS.) VANDANA SINGH — Cr.M.P./2278/2025
Case under An Application U/s 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 08th May 2026.
CNR: JHHC010237302025
Filing Number
Cr.M.P./15963/2025
Filing Date
15-07-2025
Registration No
Cr.M.P./2278/2025
Registration Date
18-08-2025
Judge
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Coram
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE ( 121 )
Sub-Category
Modification Matter ( 20 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
08th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAHUL YADAV
Adv. SABYASANCHI
Respondent(s)
THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ED Advocate - AMIT KUMAR DAS, ,DR. (MRS.) VANDANA SINGH
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Admission
Admission
Admission
Admission
Admission
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-08-2025 | Admission |
| 08-05-2026 | Admission |
| 01-05-2026 | Admission |
| 24-04-2026 | Admission |
| 17-04-2026 | Admission |
Orders
The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed Rahul Yadav's petition seeking modification of bail condition 7(c), which requires his appearance on every trial date. The court found him to be a flight risk based on his history of evading multiple PMLA summons (2022), leading to a non-bailable warrant, and surrendering only after the warrant was denied. The ED's arguments regarding his evasive conduct and unsubstantiated claims about fund sources were deemed credible, making the modification request misconceived. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed Rahul Yadav's petition seeking modification of bail condition 7(c), which requires his appearance on every trial date. The court found him to be a flight risk based on his history of evading multiple PMLA summons (2022), leading to a non-bailable warrant, and surrendering only after the warrant was denied. The ED's arguments regarding his evasive conduct and unsubstantiated claims about fund sources were deemed credible, making the modification request misconceived. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts