2026:JHHC:13262 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2417 of 2026 Shubham Sen, son of Late Bipad Baran Sen … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Sushima Aind, Advocate --- 03/5th May 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Masalia P.S. Case No. 53/2025 for the offence registered under Section 80(2)/3(5) of BNS, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is the husband and the death of his wife has occurred in matrimonial home within three years of marriage, but the same may not be the sole reason to reject the prayer for bail. 3. He submits that, as per the statement made by the petitioner before the police, there was some altercation between the parties on the issue of use of mobile phone, and his wife was allegedly in talking terms with someone else. He further submits that this aspect of the matter is also supported by the neighbour, who stated that there was some dispute in connection with the use of mobile phone. The learned counsel has also submitted that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner was not at home, rather he was in his shop, which is towards outside the house. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in the FIR lodged by the father, it has been alleged that there was some sign of assault, but in the post-mortem report, except injury arising out of 2026:JHHC:13262 2 hanging, no other injury has been found and therefore the FIR is apparently exaggerated. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is allegation of demand of dowry and also torture of the victim in the FIR. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation against the petitioner, who happens to be the husband and the fact that his wife died an unnatural death in the matrimonial home within three years of marriage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 05.05.2026 Uploaded On: 08.05.2026 Mukul/-