( 2025:JHHC:37481 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9211 of 2025 ------ Aditya Yadav @ Aaditya Yadav, aged about 27 years, son of Pawitar Yadav, resident of Village-Darha, P.O. & P.S.- Bariyatu, Dist.-Latehar … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj D. Munda, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.05 Dated- 12.12.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Bariyatu P.S. Case No.68 of 2023 (S.T. No.120 of 2025) registered for the offences punishable under sections 304B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail and earlier the prayer for regular bail was dismissed as withdrawn. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed the dowry death of his wife Chhoti Devi and during the trial the mother of the deceased has been examined as P.W.1 and she has categorically stated that the marriage of the petitioner with her daughter took place on 13.05.2022. The deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the petitioner in connection with demand of dowry of cooler and fridge soon before her death and her death was otherwise than under normal circumstances. The testimony of P.W.1 in the examination-in-chief in this respect has not even challenged in her cross-examination by putting her question. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of eight months in lodging of the FIR and the petitioner was not present in his house at that time rather he was working at Mumbai. It is also submitted that police recorded one UD case before investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in view of the overwhelming evidence in respect of the culpability of the petitioner and the unchallenged testimony of P.W.1 in the record, there is every change of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail in order to evade serving out the sentence which is likely to be imposed on the conclusion of the trial. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the overwhelming evidence that has come through the testimony of P.W.1, which remains unchallenged on the material particulars as well as the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 12.12.2025 Sonu/Gunjan-