2026:JHHC:25021 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7741 of 2026 Suneshwar Parahiya @ Suneshar Kumar Prahiya, age about 29 years, Son of Charkhu Parahiya, Resident of village – Bulka, Tola Atiyari, P.O. & P.S. – Ramna, District - Garhwa. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Ms. Neelam Kumari, Advocate : Ms. Sweta Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, APP 04/19.08.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 11.03.2025 in connection with S.T. No.215/2025, Ramna P.S. Case No.18/2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No.245/2025, registered under Sections 103 (1), 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, charge has been framed under Section 103 (1), 108 of BNS, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – II, Nagar Untari, Garhwa. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 11.03.2025. Cognizance was taken on 09.06.2025 and charges were framed under Sections 103 (1) and 108 of BNS on 20.08.2025. The petitioner happens to be the husband of the deceased. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Upon a query by this Court and as reflected in the impugned order, learned counsel submits that 3 out of 11 witnesses were examined up to 19.03.2026, though she is not aware as to how many more witnesses have been examined thereafter. 4. The learned counsel for the State, while opposing the prayer for bail, submitted that there are direct and specific allegations against the petitioner. It is submitted that several panchayats were previously held as the petitioner was addicted to intoxicants and had earlier assaulted the deceased and pressed her neck, causing her to flee to her parents' 2026:JHHC:25021 2 house. Thereafter, at the instance of the petitioner, she returned to her matrimonial home, where she was ultimately found dead under unnatural circumstances. 5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the direct allegations against the petitioner, the fact that the deceased died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home within 4 years of marriage and that the trial is going on, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 2. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the court. 3. The FSL report, if any, be also forwarded to the trial court at the earliest. 4. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district, the Director, Prosecution and the FSL, Ranchi to ensure compliance. 5. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:19.08.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:20.08.2026