( 2026:JHHC:20198 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5409 of 2026 Ajit Ravidas, aged about 24 years, S/o Sukhdeo Ravidas, R/o Hosir, Devipur, PO and PS-Gomia, District- Bokaro . … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mahtha, Advocate For the State : M/s Mohua Palit, APP For the Informant : Mr. Sajid Yunus, Advocate --- 05/08.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.01.2026 in connection with Gomia P. S. Case No.12 of 2026 for the offences registered under Sections 80 (2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023 and the case is pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was an element of love-affair between petitioner and the daughter of the informant. The marriage was solemnized on 04.10.2025. Since there was love marriage, as such, there was no question of demand of dowry. 4. He has further submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and the charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 108 of the BNS, 2023. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party-informant has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and there was demand of dowry and the petitioner within a short span of time, left his wife in her parental’ house and thereafter she was taken back in her matrimonial home where she committed suicide. 6. Learned APP for the State has supported the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the informant. 7. Upon this learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though his wife died during short span of marriage but the child also died and within three days of death of the child, his wife committed suicide. ( 2026:JHHC:20198 ) 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the wife of the petitioner died in her matrimonial home within short span of time of marriage and there is allegation of demand of dowry, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, the prayer for bail is rejected. 9. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 08.07.2026 Uploaded 11.07.2026 sandeep/