2026:JHHC:21964 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6587 of 2026 Pintu Kumar @ Pintu Kumar Mehta, son of Virendra Kumar Mehta. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, APP --- 02/24.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 10.09.2025 in connection with Barhi P.S. Case No.327 of 2025 (corresponding to ST No.70 of 2026), registered under Sections 80 (2), 61 (2), and 3 (5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – VI at Hazaribagh. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased, who was found dead in her matrimonial home and she died by hanging. He submits that the wife of the petitioner had committed suicide. The marriage was solemnized on 09.05.2025 and she was found dead on 08.09.2025. It is also submitted that the father of the deceased has been examined and he has stated that he is not aware as to how his daughter died; he further stated that she might have died due to anger and that the petitioner had made all the efforts to save his wife. 4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that out of 6 charge sheeted witnesses, 2 have been examined. 6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and upon going through the F.I.R., this Court finds that there is allegation of demand of dowry and the wife of the petitioner died in her 2026:JHHC:21964 2 matrimonial home under unnatural condition within 4 months of marriage. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. The fact remains that on earlier occasion, the petitioner has moved this Court in B.A. No. 1316 of 2026 and when this Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, the petitioner had sought permission to withdraw the bail application. 8. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the court. 9. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and also to Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:24.07.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:25.07.2026