Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9330/2026 of RANJIT DAS Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 6 October 2026
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9330 of 2026 Ranjit Das, Aged about 26 years, S/o Bhutendra Das, resident of village Shahichak, P.O.+P.S. Belbadda, District Godda … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM:
2026:JHHC:29893
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9330 of 2026
Ranjit Das, Aged about 26 years, S/o Bhutendra Das, resident of village Shahichak, P.O.+P.S. Belbadda, District Godda …
…
Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
…
… Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner
: Ms. Arya Suman, Advocate
For the Opp. Party
: Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, Advocate
---
02/6th October 2026
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.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Belbadda P.S. Case No. 28/2026 (Sessions Trial No. 310/2026) for the offence registered under Section 80(2)/3(5) of BNS, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Godda.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge has already been framed for alleged offence under Section 80(2) of BNS. The petitioner happens to be the husband of the deceased, the marriage was solemnized on 28.11.2023 and the deceased died in her matrimonial home on 27.04.2026. The petitioner has been made accused only because he is the husband of the deceased and otherwise the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The petitioner did not even abscond and was arrested from home itself.
3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is an allegation of demand of dowry against the petitioner and that on 20.04.2026, in a marriage ceremony, the petitioner had assaulted the deceased.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the deceased was found dead in an unnatural condition at her matrimonial home and that there is an allegation of demand of dowry
2026:JHHC:29893
against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected.
5. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Dated: 06.10.2026
Uploaded On: 08.10.2026
Mukul/-