2026:JHHC:22559 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6791 of 2026 1. Nirmal Kumar Verma @ Nirmal Verma, Son of Parmeshwar Mahto 2. Parmeshwar Mahto, Son of Late Bandhu Mahto … … Petitioners Versus State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Senior Advocate : Ms. Nutan Kumari Jaiswal, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, APP For the Informant : Mr. S.K. Murthy, Advocate --- 02/30.07.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody since 04.06.2026 in connection with Dhanwar (Parson OP) P.S. Case No. 171 of 2024, registered under Sections 80(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that there is general and omnibus allegation upon all the accused persons though they are all named in the First Information Report. The petitioner no.1 happens to be the brother-in-law and petitioner no.2 happens to be the father-in-law of the deceased, who was married to the co-accused on 22.02.2023 and she died in her matrimonial home under unnatural conditions on 25.07.2024. The petitioners are in custody since 04.06.2026. 4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has referred to the order dated 19.09.2025 granting bail to the co-accused namely, Pankaj Kumar Verma in B.A. No. 5693 of 2025 who happens to be husband of the deceased, although his bail application was earlier rejected vide order dated 18.12.2024. He has also relied upon the order granting bail to the co-accused Urmila Devi, the mother -in-law of the deceased, who has been granted bail vide order dated 2026:JHHC:22559 2 25.03.2026 on the ground that the husband of the deceased had already been released on bail. 5. During the course of hearing, it transpired that the husband of the deceased was already facing trial and primarily on the ground of custody, he was enlarged on bail by this Court as only three witnesses were examined till 19.09.2025. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State as well as the informant, on the other hand, have opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that in a case which was instituted in the year, 2024, the petitioners being father-in-law and brother-in-law are in custody since 04.06.2026. 7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds that deceased died in her matrimonial home within 1 and ½ years of marriage and it is not in dispute that the petitioners had been residing with the deceased and there is an allegation of demand of dowry of Rs. 3 lakhs cash and one motorcycle. In view of the allegations, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail at this stage 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:30.07.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:31.07.2026