Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8207/2026 of MUKHTAR ANSARI @ KHUSTAR ANSARI Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 24 September 2026
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8207 of 2026 Mukhtar Ansari @ Khustar Ansari, aged about 30 years, son of Mustkim Ansari, Resident of Rajoun, Pos Office – Belbadda, Police Station – Belbadda, District Godda … … 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:28780
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8207 of 2026
Mukhtar Ansari @ Khustar Ansari, aged about 30 years, son of Mustkim Ansari, Resident of Rajoun, Pos Office – Belbadda, Police Station – Belbadda, District Godda … … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anup Kr. Agarwal, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu, APP
---
05/24.09.2026
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Belbadda P.S. Case No.21 of 2026, registered under Sections 108 and 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Sessions Trial Case No.234 of 2026, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – II, Godda.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage had happened in 2011 and there is no allegation of any demand for dowry. The victim died in matrimonial home by consuming poison. The learned counsel has further submitted that although his family members were also made accused in the F.I.R., but charge sheet has been submitted only against the petitioner. The charge has been framed for alleged offence under Section 108 of BNS.
4. Learned counsel submits that no prosecution witness has been examined so far, in spite of charges being framed on 16.06.2026, and there are altogether seven charge sheet witnesses. The petitioner is in custody since 24.03.2026.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of repeatedly assaulting and abusing the deceased, which became a cause of action for the alleged offence.
6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and 2026:JHHC:28780
considering the materials collected during investigation, which reveals that the petitioner used to repeatedly assault the deceased and she died in matrimonial home after consuming poison, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected.
7. However, there can be no excuse on the part of the State not to produce the witnesses.
8. The State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the court.
9. 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.
10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:24.09.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:29.09.2026