MAHBUB ALAM @ MEHBUB ALAM v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./7848/2026 · 2026-09-02
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 24952 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 24952 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
( 2026:JHHC:26580 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 7848 of 2026
Mahbub Akam @ Mehbub Alam, Son of Masud Sk.
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
… … Opp. Party ---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Raja Ravi Shekhar Singh, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Mohua Palit, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Yasir Arafat, Advocate
---
03/02.09.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Radhanagar P.S. Case No. 93 of 2026 for the offences registered under Sections 80 (2)/ 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajmahal.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 06.05.2026 and his wife committed suicide at home. The marriage was solemnized only 8 months before. He submits that it has come during investigation that the room was locked from inside and some children had seen through the hole in the room and thereafter they entered through the other space in the room and opened the door. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner being the husband has been falsely implicated in this case.
4.
Learned counsel for the opposite party-State and the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that it is a case of dowry death and charge sheet has been submitted for offence under Section 80(2) of the BNS and there is an allegation of demand of dowry. The learned counsel for the informant has also submitted that as per the post mortem report hyoid bone was found fractured.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the allegation of demand of dowry and the deceased died within 08 months from the date of her marriage, this court is not
( 2026:JHHC:26580 ) 2
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected.
6. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 02.09.2026 Uploaded on 03.09.2026 Binit/