2026:JHHC:30055 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8580 of 2026 Rajul Ansari age 26 years old son of Ansar Ansari, resident of Village Dhurki, P.O. & P.S. Dhurki, District Garhwa. … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Azeemuddin, APP --- 06/07.10.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 27.04.2026 in connection with Dhurki P.S. Case No. 35 of 2026, registered under Sections 69, 108 & 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nagar Untari, Garhwa. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the marriage of the petitioner and the deceased was already fixed and there is no question of the petitioner committing rape upon the lady with whom the marriage was already fixed. The learned counsel has also submitted that there is no question of demand of any dowry and there are witnesses in the case diary who have stated that there was no demand of any dowry for the purposes of marriage. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that the petitioner is in custody since 27.04.2026 and as per the report received from the concerned court, the case is at the stage of evidence. 5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner not only committed rape upon the victim on number of occasions, but also there is an allegation of demand of dowry for the purposes of marriage and he gave poison to the deceased. She submits that as per the postmortem report, the 2026:JHHC:30055 2 probable cause of death is out of poisoning and FSL report is awaited. 6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner in the First Information Report itself, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected. 7. However, the state is directed to ensure that the FSL report is forwarded to the concerned court at the earliest and the state is also directed to ensure that the witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court. 8. Learned counsel for the state is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution, Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and FSL, Ranchi for compliance. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:07.10.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:08.10.2026