PANKAJ KUMAR GANJHU @ PANKAJ GANJHU v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./4347/2026 · 2026-06-15
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 16845 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 16845 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:17213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 4347 of 2026
Pankaj Kumar Ganjhu @ Pankaj Ganjhu, S/o- Suresh Ganjhu
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Fahad Allam, APP
---
05/15.06.2026
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with S.T. Case No. 288 of 2025 arising out of Charhi P.S. Case No. 93 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1349 of 2025, registered under Section 80 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge VI, Hazaribagh.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 09.04.2025 in connection with a case instituted as Charhi P.S. Case No. 93 of 2024. The petitioner happens to be husband of the victim. The learned counsel submits that the victim has committed suicide in her matrimonial home. He has also submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.
4.
Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is an allegation of demand of dowry and torture and the victim has expired in matrimonial home within four months of marriage.
5. The impugned order reveals that there are altogether six charge- sheeted witnesses, out of them, one witness has been examined till
23.03.2026.
6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that the victim has expired in her matrimonial home within four months of marriage and there is allegation of demand of dowry, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner
2026:JHHC:17213
2
on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected.
7. The State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court.
8.
Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this
order to the Director, Prosecution and also to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:15.06.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:18.06.2026