( 2026:JHHC:17630 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4018 of 2026 Satyendra Lohra @ Satendra Lohra son of Late Mahendra Lohra @ Mahadev Lohra … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Jha, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, APP --- 06/17.06.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Khelari P.S. Case No. 18 of 2025, corresponding to G.R. No. 1442 of 2025, S.T. No. 517 of 2025, for the offences registered under Sections 108/3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023 and charge has been framed under Section 108 of BNS, 2023, pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII-cum-Spl. Judge CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 20.03.2025 and he was married to the victim in the year 2019 and the victim committed suicide at home. The learned counsel submits that there is no allegation of demand of dowry. However, it has only come that the petitioner and the victim used to quarrel at home. As per FIR itself, the victim was living under stress. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner used to work in Mumbai and as per statement recorded in the case diary, the petitioner had come home just a week/15 days before the date of alleged occurrence. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the death has occurred at home and as per the statement of the witnesses, the petitioner was not in Mumbai but was present at the place of occurrence and it has come that there was repeated quarrel between the petitioner and his wife. ( 2026:JHHC:17630 ) 2 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the allegation made against the petitioner and the fact that the victim was found dead in her matrimonial home, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner, above named, is hereby rejected. 6. At this, it has been pointed out that the trial has already commenced and only one witness has been examined. The State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the court for examination. 7. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District and to the Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance. 8. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 17.06.2026 Uploaded on 18.06.2026 Binit/