2026:JHHC:15062 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1112 of 2026 Kamli Devi, wife of Rohan yadav … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Kumar, Advocate Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. V.S. Sahay, Advocate --- 05/15th May 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 257/2025 [S.T. No. 345/2025] for the offence registered under Sections 80(2)/3(5) of BNS, now said to have been pending in the court of learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-II, Chatra. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the mother-in-law, who is in custody since 02.08.2025 and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He has further submitted that the FSL report has not been received so far and therefore cause of death could not be ascertained. The learned counsel has referred to the impugned order itself. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer for bail. 4. However, during the course of hearing, it is not in dispute that the marriage has occurred in the year 2021 and the victim was found dead in her matrimonial home on 31.07.2025 and it has been alleged in the FIR that the petitioner and also the husband of the victim, namely, Sanjay Yadav used to torture the victim on demand of dowry. The impugned order reveals that as per post-mortem report, the death of the victim was caused due to haemorrhage and shock, and before her death, the deceased 2026:JHHC:15062 2 had injuries and swelling on the jaw and there were signs of scratch marks on her right hand. 5. Considering the fact that the victim had died in her matrimonial home within four years of marriage and anti-mortem injuries have been found and that there is direct allegation against the petitioner with regard to demand of dowry, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected. 6. However, the status report received from the court concerned reveals that the total number of charge-sheet witness is five and a tentative period of 12 months will be required to conclude the trial. 7. The State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses during trial. 8. 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. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 15.05.2026 Uploaded On: 15.05.2026 Mukul/-