2026:JHHC:9951 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2005 of 2026 Ganga Prasad Singh, S/o: Late Narshingh Prasad Singh … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Advocate --- 04/08.04.2026 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 20.11.2025 in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 316 of 2025, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 103, 238, 3(5) of BNS pending in the court of learned JM 1st Class, Giridih. 3. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 13.11.2025 the police ought to have lodged the First Information Report (F.I.R) themselves on recovery of beheaded body, but that was not done. The F.I.R was lodged on 15.11.2025 on the information given by the son of the deceased. 5. As per the F.I.R, the husband of the deceased had seen accused person fleeing away from the place of occurrence. On the next day, the police recovered the head, but police did not record the statement of the petitioner. By 14.11.2025 there was no indication that dog squad was pointing out to the petitioner in any manner. Subsequently, the petitioner has been implanted in the present case on 15.11.2025 on the basis of some secret information. The spy had informed the police that the petitioner was telling in the village that he had committed the murder. This is absurd because the person who has committed murder will not make such statement to open public. 2026:JHHC:9951 2 6. The learned counsel then submits that according to the confessional statement of the petitioner, he had washed the murder weapon, but the murder weapon as per the allegation, which is said to have been recovered on the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner had blood stains but it has not been supported by the seizure witnesses that there was any blood stain on the recovered weapon. 7. The learned counsel then submits that the provision of videography as per the provisions of BNSS has not been done in the present case and the police has given an explanation for not doing the videography citing technical fault. The learned counsel has submitted that the videography ought to have been done over the phone which was not done and therefore, the recovery cannot link the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is submitted that there was no allegation of matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the deceased. 8. Learned counsel further submits that it has been recorded in the case diary that later on numerous witnesses had stated that petitioner killed his wife, but no such statement was recorded earlier at the initial stage of investigation. He has submitted that charge sheet has been submitted, but FSL report has not come so far. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that no material has come up during investigation against the accused persons accused in the FIR and the name of the petitioner transpired when further investigation was done. 10. He has further submitted that with the help of dog squad the petitioner was ultimately identified, confessional statement was recorded and the murder weapon was recovered. He has referred to the statement of the witness mentioned in paragraph 158 of the case diary and so far as FSL is concerned, he submits that the FSL report can still be forwarded to the court by the concerned authority. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering serious nature of allegation against the petitioner which has been found during the course of investigation and murder weapon 2026:JHHC:9951 3 having been recovered on the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner with the help of dog squad as recorded in the case diary, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 12. The instant bail application is accordingly rejected. 13. Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record. 14. Learned counsel for the State is directed to ensure that the FSL report is forwarded to the concerned court at the earliest. 15. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to FSL Ranchi and also the director of prosecution. 16. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 08.04.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded on:-09.04.2026