2026:JHHC:9562 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 12110 of 2025 Ravi Singh @ Ravi Sahu, Son of Bhagwanu Sahu @ Narayan Singh … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kr. Karmakar, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P. --- 07/06.04.2026 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 29.12.2024 in connection with Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 234 of 2024, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and though he has been named accused in the First Information Report (F.I.R), but it has been alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioner used to assault the victim, but in the post mortem report there is no ante mortem injury except that of hanging. The charge has been framed under Section 303 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 4. He has also submitted that the mother-in-law of the deceased has been enlarged in anticipatory bail by co-ordinate bench of this Court in A.B.A No. 2783 of 2025 vide order dated 16.06.2025 and the father-in-law of the deceased has been granted regular bail by co- ordinate bench of this Court in B.A. No. 6769 of 2025 vide order dated 08.08.2025. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the victim had expired within 7 years of marriage in her matrimonial home. Learned counsel 2026:JHHC:9562 2 for the State has also submitted that so far as the grant of anticipatory bail to the mother-in-law is concerned, it was granted by submitting that the husband used to assault the victim and on the basis of grant of said anticipatory bail, the father-in-law has been granted regular bail. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner, who is the husband of deceased, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. The instant bail application is accordingly rejected. 8. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of witnesses. 9. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate 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 ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 06.04.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-07.04.2026