2026:JHHC:21639 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5469 of 2026 Jitendra Kumar Rana, Son of Sri Krishna Rana … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Mayank Mridul, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, APP For the Informant : Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Deo, Advocate --- 04/22.07.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 24.01.2026 in connection with Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 12 of 2026, registered under Sections 80/61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and the victim on 06.05.2025 and the wife of the petitioner died in unnatural condition on 20.01.2026. He submits that charge-sheet has been submitted under sections 108 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The learned counsel submits that although it has been mentioned in the First Information Report itself that the wife of the petitioner called her mother and stated that the petitioner and his family members are going to kill her, but ultimately, on the same day, she committed suicide. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy and there was gross suppression of her mental and physical condition and therefore, there was matrimonial discord. He has also submitted that the petitioner was undertaking treatment of his wife. He has also submitted that in the First Information Report, there is allegation of demand of dowry, but the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is 2026:JHHC:21639 2 in custody since 24.01.2026. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State as well as learned counsel for the informant, have opposed the prayer for bail and learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the deceased never suffered from epilepsy and there is direct allegation against the petitioner. 6. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire house and everything was burnt and therefore, he does not have any document to support that the deceased was suffering from epilepsy. 7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the direct and specific allegation made against the petitioner who is the husband of the deceased, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:22.07.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:24.07.2026