( 2026:JHHC:10255 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 351 of 2026 1. Akeshwar Ganjhu aged about 32 years son of late Lambu Ganjhu 2. Somari Devi, age about 60 years, wife of late Lambu Ganjhu … … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, APP --- 03/09.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are in custody since 11.08.2025 in connection with Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 194 of 2021, S.T. No. 455 of 2025, corresponding to G.R. No. 2378 of 2025, for the offences registered under Sections 302 & 498-A of the IPC, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Hazaribag. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 is the husband and petitioner no. 2 is mother-in-law of the victim who died due to burn injury. 4. The learned counsel submits that the marriage was solemnized in the year 2017 and since no child was born out of the wedlock, there was some tension in the family. 5. The victim was taken to the hospital due to burn injuries from her matrimonial home on 20.08.2021 and she died on 25.08.2021 but the FIR was lodged on 28.08.2021. He submits that neither the hospital, nor the doctor nor the informant nor any of the family members lodged any FIR on 20.08.2021 but the FIR was filed only on her death and therefore there is unexplained delay in filing the FIR. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 11.08.2025 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that in spite of FIR having been lodged in the year 2021, the petitioners surrendered only in the year 2025 and ( 2026:JHHC:10255 ) 2 there is direct allegation that after one year of marriage, the husband of the victim and her mother-in-law had started troubling her being barren and used to beat her over petty matters. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the serious nature of offence involved in this case, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above named on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioners above named is rejected. 8. 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/