Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8919/2026 of BINESH GANJHU Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 24 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8919 of 2026 Binesh Ganjhu aged about 22 years, son of Naresh Ganjhu, resident of village Tithi, Bhadgawan, P.O. and P.S. Kunda, Dist. Chatra … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party ---
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:28804 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8919 of 2026
Binesh Ganjhu aged about 22 years, son of Naresh Ganjhu, resident of village Tithi, Bhadgawan, P.O. and P.S. Kunda, Dist. Chatra
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …
… Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, APP
---
04/24.09.2026 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 Kunda P.S. Case No. 05 of 2026 corresponding to S.T. No. 231 of 2026, for the offences registered under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned ADJ-IInd, Chatra.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happens to be the husband of the deceased who died in her matrimonial home and the marriage was solemnized in the year 2022 but the FIR has been filed after the delay of 02 days and Post mortem was conducted prior to filing of the FIR. The FIR is concocted and forged and therefore the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. He submits that charge sheet has been submitted under Section 108 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 but he is not aware as to under what section charges have been framed. The learned counsel further submits that altogether 05 witnesses out of 11 have been examined and all of them have turned hostile but the depositions have not been placed on record. He submits that the case diary be called for.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that trial is under progress and at this stage there is no occasion to make any pronouncement so far as FIR is concerned. He submits that the deceased died in her matrimonial home and the petitioner happens to be the husband and there is likelihood that he may tamper with the remaining evidence and therefore he may
( 2026:JHHC:28804 ) 2
not be enlarged on bail. He submits that he has no objection if any observation is made to expeditious trial.
5. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the last 03 months, no witness has been produced from the side of the prosecution.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner happens to be the husband and the deceased died in her matrimonial home, the trial is in progress, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, at this stage. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected.
7. However, there can be no excuse on the part of the State not to produce the witnesses before the court. In such circumstance, the State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the court without fail.
8. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District and to the Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance.
9. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 24.09.2026 Uploaded on 28.09.2026 Binit/