2026:JHHC:25523 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6672 of 2026 Karim Ansari, aged about-30 years, Son of Md. Rasul Ansari, Resident of Village-Aayodhya, P.O. & P.S. Tinpahar, District- Sahibganj. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Birat Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Praful Jojo, APP --- 06/24.08.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.01.2026 in connection with Tin Pahar P.S. Case No.151 of 2025 in S.T. No.120 of 2026 corresponding to G.R. Case No.244 of 2026, for the alleged offence registered under Section 108, 3 (5) of BNS and the charge has been framed under Section 108 of BNS is pending in the court of learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-Cum-Spl. Court, C.A.W. Rajmahal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and the marriage was solemnized in the year 2014. The date of incident is 03.11.2025. Learned counsel has also submitted that charge has been framed, but no witness has been examined so far, and there are altogether 11 charge-sheet witnesses. The charge has been framed under section 108 BNS on 19.05.2026. 4. He has further submitted that although it is alleged that the deceased consumed poison, but no poison was found. 2026:JHHC:25523 2 5. Upon query of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, although there is allegation against the mother-in-law but final form has been submitted in respect of the mother-in-law. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for bail and has referred to the statement of witness recorded in paragraph 8 of the case diary and has submitted that there is direct allegation of demand of dowry of Rs.50,000/- and one motor cycle and it is alleged that, if the victim would not bring the dowry, the petitioner would divorce her. It is further alleged that, due to this, the victim consumed poison and died. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that in the viscera report, no poison has been found and it appears that there is no ante-mortem injuries found in the body of the deceased and charge has been framed , the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Spl. Court, C.A.W. Rajmahal in connection with Tin Pahar P.S. Case No. 151 of 2025 in S.T. No. 120 of 2026 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 244 of 2026 on the following conditions: (i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner. (ii) The other bailor should be his close relative. (iii) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of his single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner. (iv) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court. (v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings 2026:JHHC:25523 3 before the learned court below. 8. The instant bail application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions. 9. Let a copy of this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 24.08.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-25.08.2026