( 2026:JHHC:20181 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5490 of 2026 Mamta Devi, aged about 32 years, W/o Pryag Kumar Paswan, R/o Village- Dandila, PO and PS- Hussainabad, District- Palamau (Jharkhand). … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Ms. Supriya Dayal, Advocate Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, SPP --- 04/08.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 07.03.2026 in connection with S.T. Case No.108 C/ 2019 (Mohammadganj P.S. Case No.20 of 2008 corresponding to G.R, Case No.1399 of 2008) for the offence registered under Sections 498A, 304(B), 34 of IPC and Sections 3 /4 of the D. P. Act and the case is pending in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Palamau. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 07.03.2026 in connection with the case registered way- back in the year 2008. 4. Learned counsel further submits that there was utter confusion with respect to the name of sister-in-law which was mentioned as Sangeeta Devi in the FIR. He submits that name of the petitioner is Mamta Devi. 5. However, during course of argument, it has not been disputed that the petitioner is sister-in-law of the deceased and there is no sister- in-law named as Sangita Devi. 6. Learned counsel submits that pursuant to the order of this Court, supplementary affidavit has been filed indicating that petitioner got married way back in the year 2001 and one child was born in the year 2005 and at the time of marriage, she was 14 years of age and also submits that charge has already been framed. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that petitioner has evaded her arrest and ( 2026:JHHC:20181 ) further processes under Sections 83 and 83 Cr.P.C.. were earlier issued and she was arrested in the year 2026. 8. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner claims to be married sister-in-law of the victim, but the witnesses have stated that the petitioner was also involved in torture of the deceased who was thrown at the Railway Line and several ante-mortem injuries were found on her body. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials collected during investigation as pointed out by the learned counsel for the State and it is not in dispute that petitioner is sister-in-law of the deceased and now the charges have been framed under Section 304 B and 3 /4 of the D. P. Act, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 10. 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/-