VISHNU YADAV @ BISHNU KUMAR YADAV @ VISHNU KUMAR YADAV v. STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./5010/2026 · 2026-07-23
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 21489 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 21489 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:21771
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 5010 of 2026
Vishnu Yadav @ Bishnu Kumar Yadav @ Vishnu Kumar Yadav, son of Balram Mahto @ Balo Mahto
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner
: Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate
For the Opp. Party
: Mr. Fahad Allam, Advocate
---
03/23rd July 2026
1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Jasidih P.S. Case No. 02/2026 corresponding to G.R. No. 482/2026 for the offence registered under Section 103(1)/238/3(5) of BNS, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.01.2026 and the charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 80(2) of BNS, but the case-diary would reveal that the charge- sheet ought to have been submitted under Section 108 of BNS. The
learned counsel submits that it is a case of suicide and the dispute arose as the husband did not bring cake on the birthday of his child, upon which the wife committed suicide along with the child by jumping into the well and there is no ante-mortem injury.
3.
Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct allegation of demand of dowry to the extent of Rs. 4,00,000/- and one four wheeler, for that the deceased was being tortured. The marriage was solemnized in the year 2023.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the allegation regarding demand of dowry and the fact that the lady died along with the child in her matrimonial home within three years of marriage and
2026:JHHC:21771
2
that the the petitioner is the husband of the deceased, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected.
5. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Dated: 23.07.2026
Uploaded On: 23.07.2026
Mukul/-