Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 19356 (JHR)

TOUHID ANSARI ALAIS TAUHID ANSARI v. THE STATE OFJHARKHAND

B.A./6267/2026 · 2026-07-06

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:19840 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6267 of 2026 Touhid Ansari @ Tauhid Ansari, … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr.A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP --- 02/06.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.11.2022 in connection with S.T. No. 429 of 2023 arising out of Pithoria P.S. Case No. 177 of 2022 for the offences registered under Sections 304B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code,pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner being the husband is facing trial under Section 304B IPC. Learned senior counsel submitted that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on 09.02.2026 in B.A. No. 11921 of 2025 and he is in custody since 15.11.2022 and there is no much progress in the trial. The charge was framed as back as on 25.07.2023. 4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that out of 17 witnesses, 11 have already been examined and out of the remaining witnesses many of them are official witnesses. 5. After hearing the learned counselfor the parties and considering the serious nature of allegation and the bail application of the petitioner has been earlier rejected by this Court, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected. However, there can be no excuse on the part of the State not to produce the witnesses before the court. 6. The State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses/ FSL report, if any ,are promptly produced before the Court. 2026:JHHC:19840 2 7. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and the Director, Prosecution to ensure the compliance. 8. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 06.07.2026 Uploaded on 09.07.2026 Pramanik/