Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8363/2026 of MD. SAMEER @ MOHAMMAD SAMEER Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 5 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8363 of 2026 Md. Sameer @ Mohammad Sameer, aged about 34 years, son of Mohammad Mushir @ Md. Mushir, resident of Muslim Basti, Ghatsila, P.O. & P.S. – Ghatsila, District – East Singhbhum. … … 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:29650
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8363 of 2026
Md. Sameer @ Mohammad Sameer, aged about 34 years, son of Mohammad Mushir @ Md. Mushir, resident of Muslim Basti, Ghatsila, P.O. & P.S. – Ghatsila, District – East Singhbhum.
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, APP
---
05/05.10.2026
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 Ghatsila P.S. Case No.18/2026, registered under Sections 80 (2) and 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happens to be the husband of the deceased, who died on 18.03.2026. Their marriage was solemnized on 27.07.2021, and charge sheet has been submitted for alleged offence under Sections 80(2) of the BNS.
4. The learned counsel further submits that immediately after the death, Unnatural Death (UD) case was registered. At that time, the statements were recorded including of that of the informant of the present case , other witnesses and the petitioner’s son in which they stated that the deceased committed suicide. The learned counsel submits that at that point of time, no allegation of dowry was made. However, subsequently the case was lodged for offence under Sections 80 (2) / (3) (5) of BNS after 7 days.
5. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation reveals that there was a demand of dowry and torture and the deceased died in her matrimonial home within 7 years 2026:JHHC:29650
of marriage.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the allegations regarding the demand for dowry and the fact that the victim died in her matrimonial house within 7 years of marriage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected at this stage.
7. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some observation may be made so that the trial is expedited. He submits that the last date fixed in the case for framing of charge was 14.09.2026.
8. Accordingly, the State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the court as and when called upon to produce the witnesses.
2. If any forensic report is awaited, the same be also forwarded to the learned trial court promptly.
3. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and also to Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance.
4. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:05.10.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:06.10.2026