( 2026:JHHC:11457 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2060 of 2026 Rajesh Pandit S/o Naresh Pandit … … Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Sweta Singh, APP --- 03/20.04.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with S.T Case No. 336 of 2025 arising out of Ranga P.S. Case No. 107 of 2025, registered under Section 103(1), 3(5) of B.N.S 2023, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that daughter of the informant, who is the victim of the case, was married to the petitioner on 09.05.2006, and there was an allegation under Section 498A of IPC , however, no case was registered and the matter ended in compromise between the parties. He submits that the present case has been instituted on 21.08.2025 after the victim was found dead in her matrimonial house. The petitioner is the husband of the victim. He submits that it is a case of suicide. 4. The learned counsel has referred to the statement of the witness recorded in paragraph 18 who arrived at the place of occurrence after the incident and submits that the witness has also stated that there were repeated disputes between husband and wife and ultimately, she committed suicide. He submits that in-spite of this, the charge has been framed under section 103(1) BNS. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that although as per viscera report no poison was found in the body, but the post-mortem report reveals that there were multiple black spots found on her body and ( 2026:JHHC:11457 ) 2 hybrid bone was found fractured. 6. There is allegation against the petitioner that he used to torture the victim and it has also been stated that in spite of panchayati, the action of the petitioner did not mend and on 20.08.2025, the informant was telephonically informed by his daughter that she was tried to be killed and on 21.08.2025, he got the information that his daughter has been killed. 7. Considering the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 5. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:20.04.2026 Abha Date of Uploading:22.04.2026