Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8945/2026 of MAMTA DEVI Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 7 October 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8945 of 2026 Mamta Devi aged about 48 years, wife of Dinesh Prasad, Resident of village: Mahto Tola Laiyo, Post Office and Police Station: Mandu (W.B.), District: Ramgarh (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner Versus The State of
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
( 2026:JHHC:30129 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8945 of 2026
Mamta Devi aged about 48 years, wife of Dinesh Prasad, Resident of village: Mahto Tola Laiyo, Post Office and Police Station: Mandu (W.B.), District: Ramgarh (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
…
… Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Ms. Sushma Aind, APP
---
07/07.10.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with S.T. Case No. 75 of 2026, Mandu (W.B.) P.S. Case No. 09 of 2026 (G.R. No. 213 of 2026) for the offences registered under Sections 80(2)/3(5) of the B.N.S 2023, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, FTC, Ramgarh.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 23.03.2026 and she is the mother-in-law of the deceased. He has submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and her daughter-in-law has committed suicide. The main reason for commission of suicide was that victim had suspicion that her husband who was working at Simdega had illicit relation with someone else.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State and the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that the deceased died in her matrimonial home in which father-in-law and mother-in- law were living and within one year of marriage. The victim was found dead in an unnatural condition and there is also an allegation of demand of dowry against the petitioner and torturing the deceased by calling her as ‘Daain’ as is apparent from the FIR itself. They have submitted that at this stage, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the deceased died in her matrimonial home
( 2026:JHHC:30129 ) 2
and there is an allegation of demand of dowry and there is specific allegation against the petitioner for torturing the deceased by using the word ‘Daain’, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected.
6. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 07.10.2026 Uploaded on 09.10.2026 Binit/