2026:JHHC:24650 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6515 of 2026 Majluma Bibi, aged about 43 years, wife of Safayat Ansari, resident of Village Sonehara, Ward No.08, P.O. Sonehara, P.S. Dandai, District Garhwa, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- 07/17.08.2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. 2. Learned counsel for the State is present. 3. Learned counsel for the informant Mr. S.T. Sajid, Advocate and Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate are present. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 07.04.2026 in connection with Dandai P.S. Case No. 95 of 2025, for the alleged offence registered under Section 126(2), 115(2), 117 (2), 118 (2) and 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Garhwa. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a lady, who is the sister-in-law (Gotani) of the deceased who committed suicide. Learned counsel submits that in the re-statement of the informant, it has come that the petitioner and the deceased used to fight with each other alleging that they have illicit relationship with other persons. Learned counsel further submits that it is alleged that the petitioner had made certain objectionable video of the deceased with another person and the video became viral. However, in the re- statement, it has come that the deceased, immediately prior to committing suicide, had talked to Basarat Asnari and consumed 2026:JHHC:24650 2 poison. Learned counsel also submits that charge-sheet has already been submitted. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State and the informant submit that Basarat Ansari is a co-accused in this case and he has not been arrested so far and the investigation is going on against him. So far as the petitioner is concerned, there is an allegation that it was the petitioner who had made the objectionable video of the deceased viral which became a cause for committing suicide. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had also assaulted the deceased through knife over her eyes. Learned counsel also submits that the objectionable video has also been recovered during investigation as it is apparent from the case diary and the required certification under Section 65(b) has also been taken. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State further refers to the statement of the witness Muktar Ansari, recorded in the case diary, and he states that the petitioner had made the video while the deceased was in objectionable relationship with the co-accused and it was this video which was made viral. 9. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no such injury over the eyes of the deceased have been found. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner that she had made the objectionable video viral which was a cause for suicide, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. 11. The instant bail application is hereby rejected. 12. However, the petitioner may renew her prayer for bail after six months. 13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 17.08.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-18.08.2026