2026:JHHC:25692 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 6765 of 2026 Mithilesh Pal, aged about 40 years, S/o Late Briksh Pal, R/o Village- Bardanda Tola Nawadih, P.O. & P.S. Mohamadganj, Dist. Palamau, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, Advocate --- 07/25th August 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Mohammadganj P.S. Case No. 74/2025 (S.T. No. 422/2025) for the offence registered under Section 103(1) of BNS, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Palamau at Daltonganj. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happens to be husband of the deceased and is in custody since 15.09.2025. The marriage was solemnized in the year 2005; the alleged date of incident is 14.09.2025 and the charge was framed on 27.05.2026. The FIR has been lodged only on suspicion. There are seven charge-sheet witnesses, but none of the witnesses have been examined till 11.08.2026. In the FIR, although it has been mentioned that the son of the deceased and the petitioner, namely, Ranjit Kumar has stated that the petitioner had killed his wife in his presence, but his statement was not recorded by the Police. 3. Learned counsel for the State, while opposing the prayer for bail, has submitted that, as per the medical report, scratches on the neck and nail marks were found on the body of the deceased. Even the post-mortem 2026:JHHC:25692 2 report supports the allegation. The materials collected during investigation has been sent for examination by FSL. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the allegation made against the petitioner, the fact that the deceased died due to asphyxia produced by compression of the neck by manual strangulation (throttling) and there is allegation that the petitioner used to assault the deceased, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 5. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the remaining witnesses before the learned court and if there is any FSL report awaited, the same be also forwarded to the concerned court for expeditious trial. 6. 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. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 25.08.2026 Uploaded On: 29.08.2026 Mukul/-