Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 22381 (JHR)

JOGESHWAR THAKUR @ JAGESHWAR @ YOGESHWAR PRASAD THAKUR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./5315/2026 · 2026-07-30

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:22601 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5315 of 2026 Jogeshwar Thakur @ Jageshwar @ Yogeshwar Prasad Thakur … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, APP --- 04/30.07.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Saria P.S. Case No. 71 of 2026, registered under Sections 80(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, now pending in the court of learned J.M. 1st Class, Giridih. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 16.04.2026 and he happens to be the father-in-law of the deceased. The learned counsel also submits that the marriage was solemnized on 07.05.2019 and the deceased jumped into well and committed suicide on 14.04.2026. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that during investigation, it has come that the deceased was insisting that her husband should take her to Mumbai along with him and just prior to the date of occurrence, the husband had come and there was fight between the husband and wife which ultimately led to the aforesaid occurrence. He submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, though has opposed the prayer for bail by stating that there is an allegation of demand of dowry, but the other submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not in dispute. 6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the general and omnibus allegation and it has come during investigation that immediately prior to the occurrence, there was a 2026:JHHC:22601 2 fight between the husband and the wife (deceased), the petitioner being the father-in-law, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M. 1st Class, Giridih in connection with Saria P.S. Case No. 71 of 2026, on the following conditions: (i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner. (ii) The other bailor should be his close relative. (iii) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of even single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner. (iv) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court. (v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned trial court. 7. The instant application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions. 8. Let this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e- mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:30.07.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:31.07.2026