2026:JHHC:21641 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5321 of 2026 Vijay Mohan Singh, son of Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Amrita Kumari, APP --- 06/22.07.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.04.2025 in connection with S.T. Case No. 49 of 2026 arising out of M.G.M P.S. Case No. 70 of 2025, registered under Sections 126(2), 118(2), 109(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge- V, at Jamshedpur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He happens to be husband of the deceased and he had taken the deceased to the hospital. The informant of the case was informed by the petitioner that someone has killed his sister and when the informant reached the place of occurrence, he found that the blood was scattered and his sister was lying in pool of blood inside the room and blood was oozing from her head. The learned counsel submits that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that as per the materials collected during investigation, no marriage was ever solemnized between the petitioner and the victim and they were simply living together. However, the deceased had two sons from her first marriage and the children have stated that the petitioner used to repeatedly assault the deceased. 2026:JHHC:21641 2 5. Learned counsel for the State has also submitted that the trial is going on and the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. 6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the materials collected during investigation, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 7. The status report, as received from the concerned court, reveals that out of 8 charge-sheeted witnesses, two witnesses had already been examined till 01.07.2026. 8. In such circumstances, the State is directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the learned Court. 9. The State as well as FSL, Ranchi are directed to ensure that the FSL report in connection with the seized article be forwarded to the court concerned at the earliest. 10. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution, Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and FSL, Ranchi to ensure compliance. 11. 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