RAHUL GIRI ALIAS RAHUL KUMAR v. STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./11226/2025 · 2026-03-20
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 1231 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 1231 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:7814 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 11226 of 2025
Rahul Giri @ Rahul Kumar, aged about 24 years, son of Basudeo Giri, resident of village Kurknaloe, P.O. Kuruknalo, P.S. Chatrochatti, District Bokaro
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anupam Anand, Advocate
: Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
--- 04/20.03.2026
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 05.03.2025 in connection with S.T. Case No.177 of 2025, arising out of Bermo P.S. Case No.29 of 2025, registered under Sections 80 & 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – II, Bermo at Tenughat.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the husband, but he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that out of 13 charge sheeted witnesses, 5 witnesses including the mother of the victim has been examined and they are not the eye witnesses to the occurrence.
4. During the course of hearing, it is not in dispute that the victim had died within 4 months of her marriage in her matrimonial home and there is allegation of demand of dowry and cruelty.
5. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the trial can be expedited. He has also filed a counter affidavit in this case and submits that it is the case of unnatural death in matrimonial house within 4 months.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the seriousness of the offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
7. However, the State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are
2026:JHHC:7814 2
promptly produced in the trial.
8. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and also to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:20.03.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:20.03.2026