( 2026:JHHC:18218 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5226 of 2026 Suman Devi, Wife of Ram Vishwakarma … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, A.P.P. --- 03/22.06.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.05.2026 in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 293 of 2024 for the offences registered under Sections 127(2), 118(2), 109,61(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S. and section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.05.2026 and the marriage of the victim was solemnized with the brother of the petitioner on 31.10.2018. 4. He submits that the petitioner is married sister-in-law and the entire allegation was against the husband who had set the victim on fire. 5. The leaned counsel has also submitted that the dying declaration of the victim was also recorded and he has produced a copy of the police paper which has been furnished to the co-accused and has placed the dying declaration which is recorded on 17.09.2024. 6. The learned counsel submits that the bail application of the co- accused Panto Devi (mother-in-law) was allowed by this court in B.A. No. 10578 of 2025 vide order dated 06.12.2025. The case of the petitioner is on better footing. The petitioner is married sister-in-law of the victim. 7. During the course of argument and upon a query of this court the learned counsel has fairly submitted that while granting bail to the mother-in-law, the case diary was not called for. ( 2026:JHHC:18218 ) 2 8. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon going to the dying declaration as produced by the petitioner in the case diary, it is apparent that the victim, though has stated that her husband had poured kerosene oil and set her on blaze but at the same time she has stated that, when the husband was doing the alleged act, the petitioner as well as her mother-in-law and father-in-law were present and standing there. 10. Considering the dying declaration of the victim as produced by the petitioner, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is hereby rejected. 11. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 22.06.2026 Uploaded on 23.06.2026 Binit/