Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9245/2026 of DHALIYA DEVI Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 1 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9245 of 2026 1. Dhaliya Devi, aged 49 years, wife of Sukhdev Mahto 2. Sukhdev Mahto, aged about 57 years, son of late Bhikhari Mahto. Both are resident of village – Jaridih P.O. – Hundadih, P.S. – Jamua, District - Giridih …
2026:JHHC:29609
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9245 of 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. Dhaliya Devi, aged 49 years, wife of Sukhdev Mahto
2. Sukhdev Mahto, aged about 57 years, son of late Bhikhari Mahto. Both are resident of village – Jaridih P.O. – Hundadih, P.S. – Jamua, District - Giridih
… … Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP
---
03/01.10.2026
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody since 04.08.2026 in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No.230/2026, registered under Sections 126 (2), 109 (1), 115 (2), 304 (2), 351 (2), 352, 74, 76 & 3 (5) of BNS, now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Giridih.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the victim and he submits that the victim used to live separately and there was certain land dispute between the parties.
4. However, upon query of this Court, he has submitted that charge – sheet has not been submitted so far.
5. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that investigation is still going on and at this stage, the petitioners may not be enlarged on bail as there are direct allegations against the petitioners of having assaulted their daughter in 2026:JHHC:29609
law.
6. Considering the fact that the investigation is still going on, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail at this stage.
7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:01.10.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:01.10.2026