( 2026:JHHC:10254 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 922 of 2026 Kedar Hajra aged about 59 years S/o Dharam Hajra … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Seema Devi … … Opp. Parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Md. Sajid Yunus, : Md. Ayub Ansari, Advocates For the Opp. Party : Mr. Satish Prasad, APP --- 03/09.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 03.12.2025 in connection with Complaint Case No. 914 of 2025, for the offences registered under Sections 498(A),323,379 read with Section 34 of the IPC, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the husband and the alleged offence is under Section 498-A, 323 and 379 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. He has submitted that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this court in ABA No. 3551 of 2016 on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs. 2500 per month in the account of the complaint towards interim maintenance from April, 2017 but the petitioner could not abide by the order and ultimately, he surrendered before the court in December, 2025 and since then he is in custody. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the complaint petition is of the year 2015 and process under Section 82 Cr. P.C. was also issued and the petitioner was evading arrest. The learned counsel has also referred to the allegations made in the complaint petition and has submitted that there is serious allegations of assault, attempt to set the victim on fire. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the seriousness of allegation and the manner the alleged ( 2026:JHHC:10254 ) 2 offence has been committed and the fact that the petitioner avoided arrest for a long time, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 6. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months from today. 7. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 09.04.2026 Uploaded on: 10.04.2026 Binit/