2026:JHHC:18628 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5744 of 2026 Bhuneshwari Devi, wife of Late Suresh Turi … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Jit, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, APP --- 02/25.06.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 30.12.2025 in connection with S.T. Case No. 99 of 2026 arising out of Ango P.S. Case No. 02 of 2025, registered under Sections 80(2)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-III, Hazaribag. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased who died in her matrimonial home in the year, 2025 and there is general and omnibus allegation regarding demand of dowry. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that earlier no case was instituted under section 498A of Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that there was a family partition by way of Panchnama on 12.06.2021 amongst the family members. However, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to say as to whether there was any further mutation pursuant to the so-called Panchnama. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct allegation of demand of dowry. 5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the allegation made in the First Information Report that there was demand of dowry and the victim was found dead in her matrimonial home in unnatural circumstances within three years of 2026:JHHC:18628 2 marriage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 6. Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that charge has been framed on 27.02.2026, but no witness is being produced by the prosecution. 7. The State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court. 8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and also to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:25.06.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:25.06.2026