B.A./9069/2026 of RAJKUMAR DAS ALIAS RAMKUMAR DAS Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 29 September 2026

( 2026:JHHC:29296 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9069 of 2026

Rajkumar Das @ Ramkumar Das, aged about 32 years Son of Paramhans Ravi Das Resident of Village Borma, Post Office- Meharma, Police Station-Meharma, District-Godda (Jharkhand)

… … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand …

… Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal, Advocate

For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Sushma Aind, A.P.P.

---

03/29.09.2026 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 Meharma PS Case No. 73 of 2024 for the offences registered under Sections 302, 34 I.P.C. Corresponding to S.T. No. 08 of 2025 wherein charge is framed against the Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304B/34 I.P.C., pending in the court of learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge-II, Godda.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happens to be the husband of the deceased and the marriage was solemnized in the year 2020. The deceased i.e. wife of the petitioner was found dead in her matrimonial home in the year 2024. The learned counsel submits that the trial is going on and three witnesses examined have turned hostile and the mother of the deceased has also been examined and she has made specific allegation that father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased used to demand dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and so far as the petitioner is concerned, he was working in Bengaluru and at the relevant point of time also, the petitioner was in Bengaluru. The learned counsel has further submitted that material witnesses have already been examined and there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence. The petitioner is in custody since 29.11.2025 and out of 08 witnesses, 06 witnesses have already been examined.

( 2026:JHHC:29296 )

2

4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail, however, the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner based on the materials on record is not in dispute.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the even as per the evidence of the mother-in- law, there was specific allegation of demand of dowry against the father-in-law and mother-in-law, the petitioner above named is directed to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge-II, Godda, in connection with Meharma PS Case No. 73 of 2024, corresponding to S.T. No. 08 of 2025, on the following conditions:

(i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner.

(ii) The other bailor should be his close relative.

(iii) The petitioner will attend the court personally on each and every date and on account of his single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner.

(iv) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court.

(v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned court below.

6. Let this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e- mail.

7. The instant bail application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 29.09.2026 Uploaded on 30.09.2026 Binit/