Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16967 (JHR)

MANISH PANDEY ALIAS M. K. PANDEY v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./5027/2026 · 2026-06-17

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:17496 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5027 of 2026 Manish Pandey @ M.K. Pandey, Son of Bijay Pandey @ Bijay Kumar Pandey @ Vijay Pandey … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Ms. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Nishant Roy, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, Advocate --- 02/17th June 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Sindri P.S. Case No. 103 of 2023 for the offence registered under Sections 498A, 302, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was registered way back in the year 2023 and the petitioner is in custody since 05.05.2026. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is the husband of the victim, who died in her matrimonial home and was declared dead in hospital. As per prosecution case, on 06.11.2023, the son of the informant received a call disclosing that her daughter was not well and they were taking her to hospital and on the same day again a call was received disclosing that the victim had died. After receiving information, they reached Sindri to her matrimonial home, where the dead body of the 2026:JHHC:17496 2 victim was kept. The learned counsel submits that the allegations made against the petitioner are general and omnibus in nature. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and the case is of the year 2023. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected. 5. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 17.06.2026 Uploaded On: Mukul/-