( 2026:JHHC:25123 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 3993 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3993 of 2026 Rajesh Nath Goswami, aged about 45 years, son of Late Laxman Nath Goswami, resident of Village Yogiya Tilha, P.O. & P.S. Markacho, District- Koderma … Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. ----- 05/20.08.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Markacho P.S. Case No.17 of 2026, registered for the offence under Sections 103/3(5) of the BNS, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Koderma. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the petitioner happened to be husband of the deceased. He next submits that the deceased has hanged herself and, thereafter, the death has occurred. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner happened to be husband of the deceased. He next submits that the witnesses in the case diary have supported the case of the informant. On these grounds, he submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. ( 2026:JHHC:25123 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 3993 of 2026 5. The petitioner happened to be husband of the deceased. The informant in her restatement in para 4 of the case diary has stated the involvement of the petitioner and other relatives in the case. At page 7 of the case diary, the witness has further supported the FIR. The postmortem report is at para 30 of the case diary, wherein, the opinion is there to the effect that the injury was antemortem in nature. The other witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution in the case diary. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and, as such, his prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. 6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 20th August, 2026 Ajay/