2026:JHHC:19336 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6114 of 2026 Guddi Devi, aged about 42 years, W/o Guddu Mehta … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anand Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, APP --- 04/02.07.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 07.01.2026 in connection with Bishrampur P.S. Case No. 01 of 2026 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 757 of 2026 and Sessions Trial No. 203 of 2026, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita pending in the court of learned Additional Session Judge-IX, Palamau at Daltonganj. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case on the ground that the petitioner had illicit relationship with the husband of the deceased though the petitioner is named in the first information report, but apart from the fact that the dead body was exhumed from the land of the petitioner, there is no other material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. Learned counsel has further submitted that the co- accused namely Lala Kumar and Sunil Kumar have been enlarged on bail by this Court in B.A. No.2813 of 2026 and in B.A. No. 4781 of 2026 vide order dated 29.04.2026 and 02.06.2026 respectively. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the case of the petitioner is on different footing and body has admittedly been 2026:JHHC:19336 2 recovered from the land of the petitioner and petitioner has also been named in the first information report. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner is a named accused in the case and she is alleged to have illicit relationship with the husband of the deceased and also that the dead body was exhumed from the land of the petitioner, the case of the petitioner stand on different footing as that the co-accused who has been enlarged on bail. This Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. The instant bail application is hereby rejected. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 02.07.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-03.07.2026