[2026:JHHC:17519] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1659 of 2026 Prem Prakash Noniya, aged about 37 years, son of Ratan Noniya, resident of New Mains Swang, P.O. and P.S. Gomia, District-Bokaro. ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate. : Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, A.P.P. ------ 05/ 17.06.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Gomia P.S. Case No. 112 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happened to be the husband of the deceased. He next submits that on the fateful day, the petitioner was on duty in Hazaribagh, as the petitioner, by profession, is a driver and the owner of the said truck has stated in para-12 of the case diary that two days prior to the fateful day, the petitioner was on duty. He then submits that the allegations are there against the mother-in-law of the deceased of spiting in the food prepared by the deceased. He also submits that there are general and omnibus allegations against the petitioner of quarrel only. He further submits that the informant herself has stated in para-5 of the case diary that two days prior of the incident, the victim has tried to talk with the petitioner, however, the talk has not been materialized due to the fact that the petitioner was on duty of driving the truck. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided [2026:JHHC:17519] -2- to the petitioner. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner happened to be the husband of the deceased and in view of that anticipatory bail may not be provided to the petitioner. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner happened to be the husband of the deceased and in para-5 of the case diary, the informant has stated that the victim has tried to talk with the petitioner, however, the talk has not been materialized due to the fact that the petitioner was on duty of driving the truck and further the owner of the said truck has stated in para-12 of the case diary that the petitioner was on duty on the fateful day and the allegations are there against the mother-in-law of the deceased of spiting in the food prepared by the deceased. In the FIR also, there is no allegation against this petitioner of demand of dowry and that allegation is against the brother of this petitioner. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, above named. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to surrender before the learned court within three weeks from today and in the event of his surrender / arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat, in connection with Gomia P.S. Case No. 112 of 2025, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-17.06.2026 Amitesh/-