2026:JHHC:24814 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7719 of 2026 Amir Pradhan, aged about 40 years, Son of Late Jawahar Lal Pradhan @ Jajlal, R/o village Hensa, P.O. & P.S. Seraikella, District Seraikella- Kharsawan (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Nawin Kumar Singh, Advocate --- 04/18th August 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with in connection with S.T. Case No. 56 of 2023 arising out of Seraikella P.S. Case No. 129 of 2022, for the offences registered under Sections 304-B / 201/ 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sraikella. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and his bail application was rejected earlier in B.A. No. 9705/2024 vide order dated 25.11.2024. Some of the witnesses have stated that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. The petitioner is in custody since 10.11.2022; charge has been framed on 07.06.2023 and out of nine witnesses, five have already been examined. The last witness was examined on 06.02.2026 and thereafter, the remaining witnesses have not turned up. The remaining witnesses might be the official witnesses. 3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct and specific allegation made against the petitioner and the details have been mentioned in paragraph 4 of the impugned order itself. The dead body of the deceased was found burnt in naked condition and there is an allegation of demand of dowry against the 2026:JHHC:24814 petitioner. Under such circumstances, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State ALSO submits that the State shall make all endeavour to ensure that the remaining witnesses are produced promptly. 5. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the next date in the case is 9th September 2026. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the seriousness of allegation and the fact that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected earlier, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 7. However, there can be no excuse on the part of the State not to produce the remaining witnesses before the learned court and keep the petitioner in judicial custody. 8. In such circumstances, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the remaining witnesses before the learned court. The next date in the case as indicated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is 9th September 2026. 9. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 18.08.2026 Uploaded On: 19.08.2026 Mukul/-