2026:JHHC:2375 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 10523 of 2025 Pappu Sao @ Pappu Kumar, aged about 24 years, S/o Doman Sao, R/o Village-Hethpochra, P.O. & P.S.-Latehar, Dist.-Latehar, Jharkhand ..… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishnu Prabhakar Pathak, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Rajveer Singh, Advocate --------- 05/ 28.01.2026 Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has been made accused in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 72 of 2024 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 227 of 2024 for the offences registered under Sections 498A, 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner started his argument by making submission that petitioner being husband, has been falsely implicated in the present case as he was the husband of the deceased and apart from that there is no iota of material available on record which could indicate the culpability of petitioner in the alleged offence. 4. He further submitted that even the prosecution witnesses have stated that, on the day of alleged incident petitioner was out of home alongwith his parents, and deceased committed suicide as she was mentally unstable. 5. He also drew attention of this Court towards the fact that eight prosecution witnesses have already been examined and out of eight prosecution witnesses those witnesses who are near and dear to the deceased, 2026:JHHC:2375 2 have only supported the case of prosecution and other witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. 6. He further submitted that petitioner has given Rupees Fifty Thousand to the brother of the deceased through online and this fact belie the story of prosecution of demand of dowry by the petitioner as well as his family members. Further it has been contended on behalf of petitioner that other Co- accused persons, namely, Doman Saw in B.A No. 8298 of 2024 vide order dated 09.12.2024, Shubham Kumar in B. A. No. 3781 of 2025 vide order dated 09.10.2025 and Sarita Devi in B.A. No. 4271 of 2025 vide order dated 03.06.2025 have already been admitted to regular bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Informant (father of the deceased) has vehemently argued that it is consistent case of prosecution that there is demand of dowry and Rupees 4 Lacs in two installments have been given by the parents of the deceased to the petitioner and this fact have clearly been stated by the witnesses in their respective testimony recorded before the Court. He further pointed out that it is a case of throttling which is very evident from simple perusal of post mortem report. He further pointed out that even on the day of incident deceased had called her mother and had apprised her regarding the maltreatment by the hands of petitioner as well as his family members and even blood has come out of her mouth and on the same day family member of the deceased received information regarding the death of the deceased which clearly indicate the culpability of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. 8. Learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State also submitted that there 2026:JHHC:2375 3 is no fresh ground to reconsider the prayer of bail as this Court vide order dated 06.09.2024 in B.A. No. 6404 of 2024 has rejected the regular bail of the petitioner. 9. Heard and perused the material available on record. 10. At the outset, it is required to be noted that this Court vide order dated 06.09.2024 in B.A. No. 6404 of 2024 has declined the prayer for grant of bail of the petitioner. When query was made from the learned counsel for the petitioner that what is the fresh ground for reconsideration of prayer of bail of the petitioner then except the long judicial detention nothing has been brought to notice of this Court. This Court called for status report of the stage of the present case and same has been received, wherein learned trial court has apprised that out of fourteen prosecution witnesses eight have already been examined. 11. Mother, father, brother and mama of the deceased have been examined as P.W. 1, 2, 3 & 4 respectively and in their respective testimonies they have categorically stated that there was demand of dowry by the petitioner as well as his family members and even on the day of incident deceased had called her mother and apprised her that she was given beatings by the petitioner as well as his family members. Those witnesses also have spoken about the demand of dowry. It is true that in evidence, few of the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Doctor has opined the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia which could be due to throttling of upper respiratory passage. 12. As stated earlier, except long custody nothing has been brought to reconsider the prayer for grant of bail. Considering the stage of trial where 2026:JHHC:2375 4 the testimony of majority of witnesses got recorded, this Court does not find it fit to grant bail to petitioner, and at the same time, this Court expect from the learned trial court that as petitioner is in custody, therefore, the trial should be expedited and it should be concluded at earliest. 13. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner Pappu Sao @ Pappu Kumar on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected. (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Rajnish/