[2025:JHHC:34837] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 10622 of 2025 Chamu Mahto @ Chaitany Kumar Mahto age about 24 years Son of Salaka Mahto, resident of Murudih, P.O. Sangrampur, P.S. Gola & District Ramgarh. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav Kumar ,Adv. For the State : Ms. Shweta Singh, Addl. PP. 02 / 21.11.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Gola P. S. case no. 121 of 2024 (G.R. No. 299 of 2025, S.T. no. 67 of 2025) instituted under Section 103 (1), 238, 115 (2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this is the second journey of the petitioner with the regular bail as earlier the prayer of regular bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 02.05.2025 passed in BA No. 3400 of 2025 and the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile, seven prosecution witnesses have been examined, out of whom PW 1 to 6, have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been declared hostile. It is next submitted that even though the prosecution was permitted to put leading questions still they have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the PW7 – Kuldeep Mahato, who is the paternal uncle, has stated that the petitioner after his marriage with the deceased along with his relatives were demanding dowry of Rs. 50,000/- to be brought by her from her father and they used to treat her with cruelty by assaulting and harassing her and coercing her to meet the unlawful demand of dowry. The father of the deceased was unable to meet the said unlawful demand, hence, he could not give the same to the deceased and sent her back to her matrimonial house. It is next submitted that the marriage of the deceased took place in June, 2022 and the deceased died on 29.11.2024, otherwise than under normal circumstance. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in jail custody since 01.12.2024, as mentioned in para 11 of this bail application. 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 on regular bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the six witnesses who have turned hostile are the either relatives of the petitioner or his neighbor and the witnesses related to the deceased including the informant are still to be examined. It is next submitted that because of the overwhelming evidence that has come through PW7, 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 and 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 at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Dated 21.11.2025 Smita/-