( 2026:JHHC:18168 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5529 of 2026 ------ Manju Devi @ Puniya Devi @ Punia Devi, aged about 41 years, wife of Chhutu Das @ Kailash Ravidas, resident of village –Nagri, P.O. –Nagri, P.S. –Nimiaghat, District – Giridih. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 22.06.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Saria P.S. Case No.01 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 329(4), 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 103(1), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons has committed the murder of Bhuneshwar Das and attempted to murder Yogendra Das. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted that it has categorically been mentioned by the wife and daughter-in-law of the deceased namely Sukri Devi and Meena Devi respectively whose statement appears in para -8 & 9 of the case diary that the petitioners and his family members pushed the deceased by which he fell down and when the nephew of the deceased came with a stick (Lathi), the petitioner and others ran away and while running away, they crushed the deceased, under their feet. It is further submitted that from the description of the occurrence, it does not suggest that the petitioner had intention to kill anyone. It is then submitted that the petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. It is next submitted that the co-accused person has already been admitted to bail by a coordinate bench of this court vide order dated 29.05.2026 in B.A. No. 4680 of 2026. It is then submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in para –14 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 03.01.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 15 of the bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and that she will not annoy or disturb the informant or the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the above-named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Giridih, in connection with Saria P.S. Case No.01 of 2026 with the condition that the petitioner will co-operate with the trial of the case and will furnish her mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that she will not change her mobile number during the trial of the case, with further condition that she will not annoy or disturb the informant or the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 22.06.2026 Sonu/