( 2026:JHHC:10734 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2312 of 2026 Mantu Mishra son of Bhola Mishra … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Pinki Kumari, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, APP --- 05/15.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Jaridih P.S. Case No. 118 of 2025, for the offences registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 117(2), 109, 85, 352, 351(2) of the B.N.S. 2023 and section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and later on cognizance has been taken under Section 115(2), 126(2), 117(2), 109, 85, 352(2), 351 of BNS 2023 and under Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, victim is the mother-in-law of the petitioner and the FIR was lodged by his father-in-law by alleging that the victim was assaulted by the petitioner by sharp cutting weapon and there is allegation of demand of dowry. The learned counsel submits that statement of the victim has been recorded in the case diary and as per the case diary she has supported the allegation of injury caused by sharp cutting weapon. However, the medical examination report reveal that the victim suffered certain injuries on account of hard and blunt substance. The petitioner is in custody since 12.11.2025 and charge has already been framed on 06.04.2026. He has also submitted that the wife of the petitioner has not supported the allegation of demand of dowry as per her statement. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the petitioner has a criminal antecedent under Section 498-A of the IPC though the wife of the petitioner has ( 2026:JHHC:10734 ) 2 not made any allegation so far as demand of dowry is concerned but she has stated that the petitioner used to assault her. 5. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case under Section 498-A ended in a compromise. He refers to paragraph 16 of the bail application. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the custody of the petitioner since 12.11.2025, the petitioner above named is directed to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, in connection with Jaridih P.S. Case No. 118 of 2025, on the following conditions: (i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner. (ii) The other bailor should be his close relative. (iii) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of his single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner. (iv) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court. (v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned court below. 7. Let this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e- mail. 8. The instant bail application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 15.04.2026 Uploaded on: 16.04.2026 Binit/