2026:JHHC:19179 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5956 of 2026 Prahlad Mahto @ Prahlad Kumar, S/o- Motilal Mahto … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, APP (joined online) --- 05/01.07.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 07.10.2025 in connection with S.T. Case No. 24 of 2026 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 233 of 2025, registered under Section 80(2), 126(2), 115(2), 61(2), 108, 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, now pending in the court of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and is in custody since 07.10.2025. The marriage was solemnized on 18.04.2025 and wife of the petitioner was found dead in her matrimonial home on 27.08.2025. The learned counsel submits that the wife had committed suicide and the petitioner was not present at home and he was at Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru. In order to support the aforesaid statement, he has annexed certain documents regarding his attendance in office and his travel from Bengaluru to Ranchi. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that although other family members were also made accused in this case, but ultimately charge-sheet has been submitted only against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State has joined the proceedings online, but on account of certain technical reasons, he is not audible. 2026:JHHC:19179 2 6. As per the First Information Report itself, there is direct allegation against the petitioner that he was demanding an amount of Rs. 1 lakh and one Apachi motorcycle and there is allegation that the wife was being tortured mentally and physically on repeated occasions. In view of the fact that the wife of the petitioner died in her matrimonial home within short time of marriage and there is direct allegation of demand of dowry against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:01.07.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:02.07.2026