B.A./8609/2026 of MANJUR ANSARI @ MANZOOR MIYA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 7 October 2026

( 2026:JHHC:30068 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No. 8609 of 2026

Manjur Ansari @ Manzoor Miya, aged about 22 years, S/o-Ulfat Miya, R/o-Village-Kusmatand, P.O.-Gaganpur, P.S.-Chakai, District- Jamui, (Bihar)

… … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate

For the Opp. Party : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P.

---

04/07.10.2026

Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 11.07.2025 in connection with S.T. Case No. 495 of 2025 arising out of Hirodih P.S. Case No. 84 of 2025, registered under Section 80(2)/238(6)/3(5) of B.N.S., now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased, who happened to be the wife of the petitioner was in her parental house on the date of the alleged incident and she was found dead in a well and died due to asphyxia (drowning). Learned counsel further submitted that the root cause of dispute was that the deceased was having illicit relationship with the brother of the petitioner and on the date of occurrence, the petitioner was at Jamui and there was talk of some kind of panchyati, as to whether, his wife would stay with the petitioner or with his brother and therefore, the lady had gone to her parental house. Learned counsel has submitted that under such circumstances, the provision of dowry death and the presumption thereunder is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner has been falsely implicated. The charge- sheet has already been submitted. However, the charge has been framed for alleged offence under Section 80(2) of B.N.S. which relates to dowry death.

4. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party- State has opposed the ( 2026:JHHC:30068 )

2

prayer for bail and has submitted that in the F.I.R. itself, there is an allegation of dowry demand and the parents of the deceased have stated that the petitioner had come and there was quarrel between the petitioner and the deceased and ultimately, the deceased was found dead in the well. Learned counsel has submitted that material witnesses are yet to be examined before the Court and at this stage, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.

5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and it is not in dispute that the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased was performed in the year 2020 and the incident had happened within seven years of marriage and there is also an allegation of demand of dowry and the material witnesses are yet to be examined before the Court and the petitioner is the husband of the deceased , this Court is not inclined the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

6. 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: