2026:JHHC:26290 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7233 of 2026 Vikash Murmu, Aged about 20 years, son of Late Chunka Murmu, Resident of Taljhari, P.O. & P.S. Lalmatia, District Godda, … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Fahad Allam, Advocate --- 05/1st September 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Lalmatia P.S. Case No. 49/2025 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 370 of 2025 for the offence registered under Sections 115(2), 352, 80 and 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Godda. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased, who committed suicide at her matrimonial home less than one year after the marriage. The charge has been framed way back on 14.11.2025, but no witness has been produced till the passing of the impugned order dated 04.05.2026. 3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not state under which Section the charge has been framed. However, the learned counsel submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 108 of BNS. 4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is allegation of torture in the FIR itself. The learned counsel submits that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is likelihood that he may tamper with the evidence. 2026:JHHC:26290 2 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that important witnesses, including the informant, are yet to be examined before the learned court and that there is a likelihood of the petitioner influencing the witnesses , this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Hence, this bail application is hereby rejected. 6. However, there can be no excuse on the part of the State not to produce the witnesses before the learned court. 7. Since the charge has already been framed on 14.11.2025, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses before the learned court. 8. 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. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 01.09.2026 Uploaded On: 01.09.2026 Mukul/-