( 2026:JHHC:22443 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 5114 of 2026 Dilip Lal Srivastav @ Dilip Srivastav son of Tribhuvan Lal … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Bandana Sinha, APP For the Informant : Ms. Kabisha Goenka, Advocate --- 05/29.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 18.04.2026 in connection with Mahagama P.S. Case No. 56 of 2026, for the offences registered under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, at Godda. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The marriage between the petitioner and his wife (deceased) had taken place in the month of April, 2015 i.e. 11 years prior to the incident and it has come during investigation that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was in Gaziabad. He submits that initially a case was lodged under Section 103 of the BNS. However, the charge sheet has been submitted under Section 108 of BNS. The wife of the petitioner had committed suicide while the petitioner was not at home. 4. Learned counsel for the informant as well as the opposite party- State have opposed the prayer and have submitted that it has come in the inquest report that there was prior injury found on the body of the deceased and it has come during investigation that there has been dispute between the petitioner and his wife and the witnesses have also stated that the petitioner used to instigate his wife to commit suicide and ultimately, she committed suicide. The learned counsel for the informant also submits that as per the CDR report, on the alleged ( 2026:JHHC:22443 ) 2 date of occurrence, there was conversation between the petitioner and his wife (deceased) 11times. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials collected during investigation and also the statement of the witnesses which indicates that the petitioner used to instigate his wife to commit suicide and ultimately, she committed suicide, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 6. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 29.07.2026 Uploaded on: 01.08.2026 Binit/