Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9200/2026 of NAND LAL MAHTO Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 1 October 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9200 of 2026 Nand Lal Mahto aged about 38 years, son of Sri Janki Mahto resident of village Chutte P.O. Chutte, Police Station Chatro Chatti, District Bokaro … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … …
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:29612 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9200 of 2026
Nand Lal Mahto aged about 38 years, son of Sri Janki Mahto resident of village Chutte P.O. Chutte, Police Station Chatro Chatti, District Bokaro
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …
… Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jyoti Prasad Sinha, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, APP
---
04/01.10.2026 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 Chatrochatti P.S. Case No. 42 of 2025 (G.R. No. 177 of 2026), S.T. No. 179 of 2026, for the offences registered under Sections 103(1) and Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happens to be the husband of the deceased and the marriage was solemnized about 14 years before from the date of occurrence. The petitioner is in custody since 13.12.2025. Charge has been framed in this case on 10.05.2026 and till date 04 witnesses out of 09 have been examined before the court. The next date is on 03.10.2026. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the charge has been framed against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Sections 103(1)/3(5) of the BNS.
4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the deceased was found in her matrimonial home in an unnatural circumstances and the impugned order reveals that as per the post mortem report, the doctor has opined that the cause of death is compression of cervical vasculature and asphyxia due to hanging and there is an allegation that the petitioner was assaulting and torturing the deceased prior to death.
( 2026:JHHC:29612 ) 2
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and trial is in progress and certain material witnesses are yet to be examined before the court, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
6. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the court as indicated by the counsel for the petitioner that the next date fixed before the learned court is 03.10.2026.
7. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the S.P. of the concerned District and to the Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance.
8. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 01.10.2026 Uploaded on 03.10.2026 Binit/