2026:JHHC:29569 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9215 of 2026 Suraj Saw @ Chhoti @ Chhoti Kumar @ Chhoti Saw, S/o Khirodhar Saw, aged about 28 years, R/o – village: Tatijhariya, post – Tatijhariya, P.S. Tatijhariya, District – Hazaribag, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shiv Prasad Singh, Advocate : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, APP --- 03/01.10.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 20.05.2026 in connection with Tatijharia P.S. Case No.44/2023, registered under Sections 304B/34 of IPC, ¾ of D.P. Act, now pending in the court of learned A.D.J. III, Hazaribagh as S.T. No.171 of 2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happens to be the husband of the deceased and marriage was solemnized on 23.04.2022. The deceased died in matrimonial home on 01.11.2023 under unnatural circumstances. He submits that the deceased committed suicide and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. However, he has submitted that the petitioner has surrendered before the court only on 20.05.2026 and he is in custody. 4. The learned counsel has further submitted that the co-accused has been acquitted for alleged offence under Section 304B/34 of IPC vide judgement dated 23.09.2025. He has further submitted that there is no material against the petitioner regarding demand of dowry. 5. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the case against the petitioner as is apparent from the impugned order itself is for alleged offence under Section 304B/34 of IPC and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act. He submits 2026:JHHC:29569 2 that the deceased died in matrimonial home under unnatural condition within 1 ½ years of marriage and the petitioner cannot take any advantage of the order of acquittal of the co-accused. The petitioner has to be tried independently. 6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the direct allegation against the petitioner, who happens to be the husband of the deceased, and the deceased-wife died within 1 ½ years of marriage in her matrimonial home under unnatural conditions, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected. 7. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:01.10.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:01.10.2026