2026:JHHC:20904 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.4092 of 2026 Sanjiv Kumar Singh @ Chhotu Singh @ Sanjiv Singh, aged about 31 years, son of Sudama Singh, resident of Village – Manjhiaon Main Road in front of Government School, P.O. and P.S Manjhiaon, District - Garhwa. …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …... Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, A.P.P For the Informant : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. R. R. Tiwary, Advocate -------- 08/Dated: 15 th July, 2026 1. In compliance of order dated 09.07.2026, Dr. Sanjay Kumar, Associate Professor, Head of Department, Department of Forensic Medicine, RIMS, Ranchi, is physically present before this Court. 2. Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned senior counsel, appearing for the informant. 3. The applicant, who is in custody since 08.07.2025, has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail in connection with S.T. No.312 of 2025, arising out of Manjhiaon P.S. Case No.97 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 85/ 80/ 61(2) of the BNS, 2023. It appears that earlier the prayer for bail of this applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.02.2026, passed in B.A. No.10004 of 2025. Now, the prayer for bail has been renewed after framing of the charge. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that complete set of F.I.R along with its enclosures have been annexed with the present bail application and there is no suppression on his/ her part. Innocence of the applicant has been claimed and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. It - 1 - B.A. No.4092 of 2026 2026:JHHC:20904 has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant by referring to the materials especially, the post-mortem report and the F.S.L report that the cause of death of the deceased has not been ascertained. It is the prime duty of the prosecution, when invoking Section 304B IPC Section 80 of the BNS, 2023), to prove that the death was unnatural and this factor has to be substantiated by the materials available on record, otherwise the presumptive arena will not come into play. In the present case since the cause of death has not been ascertained, hence the presumptive area cannot be invoked and as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and the learned senior counsel appearing for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel that there was some ante-mortem injury and a young healthy and hearty woman has died, which cannot be said to be a natural death. It has further been submitted that the witnesses as well as the accused have stated that it is a case of consumption of poison and further, the forensic report also suggests that the sample, sent for examination, contents poison. It has also been submitted that there was ante- mortem injury on the dead body of the deceased and there is allegation of demand of dowry also and further, the death is unnatural and as such, the offence is made out. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that the dead body was not having any poison, as per the F.S.L report and the cause of death has also not been ascertained although suspicion has been shown that it is a case of poisoning. Unless or until, the material is there, suggesting that it is a unnatural death, Section 304B IPC ( Section 80 of the BNS, 2023) cannot be invoked. The injury was also found to be simple in nature, as it was not life threatening. The allegation of demand of dowry is also in general in nature and coupled with the fact that by oral evidence the death has been said to be poisoning, but the viscera report suggests otherwise. Considering the facts of the case in totality, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the - 2 - B.A. No.4092 of 2026 2026:JHHC:20904 applicant is directed to be released on bail, on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge – I, Garhwa, in connection with S.T. No.312 of 2025, arising out of Manjhiaon P.S. Case No.97 of 2025, on the condition that the applicant will submit self attested photocopy of his Aadhaar Card and his mobile number before the learned trial court which he will always keep active and will not change it during pendency of this case without prior permission of the court. 7. However, it is hereby, clarified that the opinion expressed by this Court, in the present case, is only for the purpose of bail. 8. Personal appearance of Dr. Sanjay Kumar, Associate Professor, Head of Department, Department of Forensic Medicine, RIMS, Ranchi, is hereby, dispensed with. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 15th July, 2026 Chandan/- Uploaded on 15.07.2026 - 3 - B.A. No.4092 of 2026