[2025:JHHC:13320] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3400 of 2025 Chamu Mahto @ Chaitany Kumar Mahto, aged about 24 years, son of Solaka Mahto, R/O- At- Murudih, P.O.- Sangrampur, P.S. - Gola, District - Ramgarh, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … opp. party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Adv. For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra , Addl. PP 02 / 02.05.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Gola P.S. Case No. 121 of 2024 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 103 (1), 238, 115 (2) , 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3/4 of D.P.Act.. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed dowry death of his wife Ravita Kumari. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false and only because of a minor quarrel between the petitioner and his wife, the wife of the petitioner committed suicide. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case hence, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the undisputed the fact remains that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage, otherwise than under normal circumstances and there is also allegation against the petitioner of demanding Rs. 50,000/- and there is every chance of the petitioner absconding if released on bail and also there is chance of the petitioner tampering with the evidence. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be released on bail at this stage. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the chance of his tampering with the evidence and absconding, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-