Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8614/2026 of KADIR MIYA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 7 October 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8614 of 2026 Kadir Miya, aged about 63 years, S/o late Babujan Miya, r/o village- Harlatanr, P.O.-Manjhladih, P.S. & Dist.-Jamtara … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM:
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:30070 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8614 of 2026
Kadir Miya, aged about 63 years, S/o late Babujan Miya, r/o village- Harlatanr, P.O.-Manjhladih, P.S. & Dist.-Jamtara
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Ms. Ritu Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Papita Mondal, Advocates
---
06/07.10.2026
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 27.07.2026 in connection with Jamtara P.S. Case No. 15 of 2026, registered under Section 80/3(5) of B.N.S., now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the father-in-law of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in this case. She had submitted that on the last occasion on 17.09.2026, that the petitioner was living separately from the deceased.
4. However, during the Court proceedings, she has not been able to show any material from the case diary that the petitioner was living separately from the deceased.
5. At this the learned counsel has further submitted that the anticipatory bail was granted to the co-accused namely, Anwar Ansari on 26.05.2026 in A.B.A. No.2756 of 2026 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and regular bail has been granted to one Majid Ansari in B.A. No. 4656 of 2026 vide order dated 29.05.2026.
6. Learned counsel for the Informant has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct allegation of demand of dowry and assault against the petitioner and the victim died in her matrimonial home under unnatural circumstances after about two years of marriage. Learned counsel has also submitted that the independent witnesses in the neighborhood have also supported the ( 2026:JHHC:30070 )
2
allegation against the petitioner and it is not correct to say that the petitioner was living separately from the deceased. She has also submitted that so far as grant of anticipatory bail to Anwar Ansari is concerned, at that point of time, the proceeding under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was already initiated , but this was not disclosed to the concerned Court and so far as the regular bail of Majid Ansari is concerned, he was granted bail on the submissions that he was living separately from the deceased.
7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner supported by independent witnesses and there is allegation of demand of dowry, the deceased has died in her matrimonial home under unnatural conditions within a brief period from marriage and material witnesses are yet to be examined before the learned court , this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:07.10.2026 Nandini Date of Uploading: