Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8111/2026 of RAJESH RAVIDAS @ RAJESH KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 23 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8111 of 2026 Rajesh Ravidas @ Rajesh Kumar, Aged about 22 Years, Son of Govind Ravidas, Resident of : Vill-Chuglamo, P.O.- Barkatha, P.S. Barkatha, Distt. Hazaribag (Jharkhand) … … 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:28611
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8111 of 2026
Rajesh Ravidas @ Rajesh Kumar, Aged about 22 Years, Son of Govind Ravidas, Resident of: Vill-Chuglamo, P.O.- Barkatha, P.S. Barkatha, Distt. Hazaribag (Jharkhand)
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
03/23.09.2026
Learned counsel for the petitioner is present.
2. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, APP, is also present.
3. Mr. Randhir Kumar, the learned counsel for the informant is also present.
4. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 23.09.2025 in connection with Barkatha P.S. case No. 104 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2547 of 2025 (S.T. Case No. 45 of 2026), registered under Section 80(2)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge-IV, Hazaribag.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that charge has been framed for alleged offence under Sections 80(2) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the petitioner happens to be the husband of the deceased. He submits that the petitioner used to reside in Surat and it is alleged in the First Information Report that the victim died due to poisoning, but no poisoning has been found in the FSL report. He submits that in the postmortem report it is stated that the cause of death is poison. He submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case only because he happens to be the husband of the deceased.
7. However, it is not in dispute that the deceased died in her matrimonial home within short time of marriage of just more than a year.
2026:JHHC:28611
2
8. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that 02 out of 08 witnesses have already been examined and he has referred to the statement of the independent witness in paragraph 48 of the case diary, who happens to be a person from the neighbourhood, who has stated that there was a direct demand of dowry by the petitioner and the petitioner left his wife in the matrimonial house and went away and stated that he would not come back unless his wife would bring Rs. 1 lakh from her parents.
9. Considering the direct allegation of demand of dowry by the petitioner and the deceased died in her matrimonial home within a little more than one year of marriage , this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected.
10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:23.09.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:28.09.2026