( 2026:JHHC:17086 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3894 of 2026 ------ Sandeep Kumar Thakur, aged about 29 years, S/o Kameshwar Thakur, R/o –H. No. 70, Kasidih, P.O. & P.S. – Sakchi, Jamshedpur, District –East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Kr. Trivedi, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 12.06.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No.25 of 2025 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 174 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 103(1), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. This is the third journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail. Earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected on merit vide order dated 10.07.2025 in B.A. No. 5667 of 2025 and subsequently dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.12.2025 in B.A. No. 11121 of 2025. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the only fresh ground is that so far five witnesses have been examined including the informant who has supported the case of the prosecution. It is then submitted that the mother and the father of the wife of the brother of the petitioner who have been examined as P.W.1 & 3 have not stated anything about demand of dowry. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the P.W. 4 & 5 who are the relatives of the deceased have categorically stated about the demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased and undisputedly the deceased died within seven years of her marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances. It is next submitted that there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence in view of the overwhelming evidence that has already come on record against him. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the evidence that has already come on record, as also the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 12.06.2026 Sonu/