2026:JHHC:14459 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1101 of 2026 Upendra Mahato @ Upendra Nath Mahato, son of Sri Jagannath Mahato … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Satish Prasad, Advocate --- 04/12th May 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Chowka P.S. Case No. 41/2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 320/2025 for the offence registered under Section 103(1), 238 of BNS, now said to have been pending in the court of learned A.D.J. at Chandil in S.T. No. 193/2025. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband of the victim and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has submitted that it is alleged that the petitioner had solemnized second marriage and was living in Kolkata and the victim was on a way to Kolkata. However, she was found dead in Seraikella-Kharsawan within the State of Jharkhand. He submits that apart from the confessional statement of the petitioner, one mobile phone of the victim is alleged to have been recovered at the disclosure made by the petitioner, but no TIP has been conducted and the mobile phone was not having any SIM card. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner. He submits that in paragraph 22 of the case diary, it has been mentioned that the SIM card of the deceased’s mobile phone bearing number 7484056285 was broken and thrown away. 2026:JHHC:14459 2 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner and that there is recovery of mobile phone at the instance of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected. 5. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that charge has been framed on the month of November, 2025, but the witnesses have not been produced. 6. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses during trial. 7. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 12.05.2026 Uploaded On: 13.05.2026 Mukul/-