2026:JHHC:20874 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4993 of 2026 Prakash Kumar Jha, Age-29 years, S/o Vinod Jha … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr.F.K. Jha, Advocate Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, APP --- 03/14.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 03.01.2026 in connection with S.T. Case No. 187 of 2026, arising out of Dhurwa (T)P.S. Case No. 322 of 2024for the offences registered under Sections 80(2) of the B.N.S., 2023, pending in the court of learned A.J.C.-XV, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner happens to be husband of the deceased and there was inter- religion love marriage between the petitioner and the deceased and the petitioner came down from Delhi and ultimately settled in Tupudana with his wife and both were working. He further submits that on 23.11.2024 the FIR was lodged when his wife was found dead in the rented house where the petitioner and his wife were residing. Learned counsel further submits that when he saw his wife dead, he was under apprehension that some riot maytake place.Then he took the suicide note from the place of occurrence and thereafter he wrote a letter to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Ranchi annexing the copy of the suicide note vide letter dated 01.11.2025.Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not in proper mental state and therefore he took one year to send a copy of the suicide note to the Sr.S.P., Ranchi. Learned counsel submits that had the petitioner not run away from the place of occurrence there were all chances that riot would have taken place. The marriage was solemnized in the year 2022. 4. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is allegation of demand of dowry and assaultupon the deceased. However, he has 2026:JHHC:20874 2 relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Major Singh and another vs. State of Punjab reported in MANU/SCOR/00021/2010 and has submitted that in absence of proximate and live link between the demand of dowry and death, the conviction under Section 304 B cannot be sustained and the accused therein was acquitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. Learned counsel also referred to the postmortem report and submitted that there is no ante-mortem injury and she died of hanging and she was found lying on the bed. He has submitted that petitioner had taken her down and put her on bed and ultimately took away the suicide note,boltedthe house from outside and ran away to save his life. The petitioner is in custody since 03.01.2026 as he has surrendered before the trial court and the charge has been framed on 30.03.2026 and it has been inadvertently mentioned in the bail application that the charge was framed on 16.05.2026. He has submitted that not a single witness has been examined so far and the petitioner is in custody for almost 7 months having no fault. 6. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that as per the postmortem report,Doctor found ligature mark in upperneck which was ante-mortem in nature and cause of death is Asphyxia due to hanging. He has submitted that there is clear allegation made against the petitioner in the FIR itself, and he had managed to evade his arrest since 23.11.2024 and surrendered only on 03.01.2026. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid submissions and the fact that the deceased was found dead in her house where she was residing with the petitioner and the house was bolted from outside and also the fact that the petitioner after one year has written a letter to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Ranchi with the suicide note and the argument of the petitioner reveals that the petitioner ran away with the suicide note from the place of occurrence , this Court under the facts and circumstances, is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected. 2026:JHHC:20874 3 8. However, there can be no reason on the part of the State not to produce the witnesses before the trial court. 9. Learned counsel for the State is directed to ensure that the witnesses and FSL report, if any, are promptly produced before the court concerned. 10. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Sr. Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and also to the Director, Prosecution for compliance. If the witnesses are not promptly produced, the responsibility will be fixed upon the Sr. Superintendent of Police of the concerned district. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the next date in the trial is on 18.07.2026. 12. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 14.07.2026 Uploaded on 14.07.2026 Pramanik/