2026:JHHC:4189 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A No.10004 of 2025 Sanjiv Kumar Singh @ Chhotu Singh @ Sanjiv Singh, aged about 30 years, son of Sudama Singh, resident of village – Manjhiaon Main Road In Front of Government School P.O and P.S – Manjhiaon and District – Garhwa. …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P For the Informant : Mr. J. S. Singh, Advocate --------- 04/Dated: 16 th February, 2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant-husband, who is in custody since 08.07.2025, has approached this Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Manjhiaon P.S. Case No.97 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 85/ 80/ 61(2) of the B.N.S., 2023, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Garhwa. It is a case of dowry death. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that complete set of F.I.R along with its enclosures have been annexed with the present bail application and there is no suppression on his/ her part. Innocence of the applicant has been claimed and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted that marriage has taken place between the parties on 26.04.2024. Although the death is within seven years of marriage, but the reason is not demand of dowry rather it was a family dispute, as the pregnant sister of the applicant was residing in the same house. Referring to one of the statements, it has been submitted that the deceased after consuming poison has stated that she has committed mistake. Referring to the above statement, it has been submitted that it is not the case of dowry death and further, all the family members have been granted anticipatory bail by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.09.2025 and - 1 - B.A. No.10004 of 2025 2026:JHHC:4189 20.12.2025, passed in A.B.A No.5179 of 2025 & A.B.A. No.5332 of 2025 with analogous cases. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been made. 4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail. 5. Jurisprudence of Section 304B IPC (Now Section 80 of the B.N.S, 2023)) is different. It cannot be treated as a normal case. The difference between Sections 302, 306 and 304B IPC (Now Sections 103, 108 & 80 B.N.S, 2023) is classical. The jurisprudence of the dowry death is altogether different. In the present case, death of the deceased is within seven years of marriage. There is allegation of demand of dowry. Even, if it is presumed that death of the deceased is suicidal then also it is unnatural death. Thus, ingredients are complete. 6. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail, at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the applicant is, hereby, rejected. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 16th February, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- Uploaded on 17.02.2026 - 2 - B.A. No.10004 of 2025