2026:JHHC:10982 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3177 of 2026 Putumani Murmu, wife of Dinesh Tudu … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Ms. Nidhi Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, Advocate --- 04/17th April 2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with S.T. No. 303/2022 arising out of Khaga P.S. Case No. 03/2022 for the offence registered under Sections 302, 201, 34 of IPC, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhupur, Deoghar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 16.01.2022 and till date, the trial has not concluded. She has submitted that out of fifteen charge-sheet witnesses, eight have been examined. She has also submitted that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. She submits that the victim was the 3rd wife and the petitioner is the 2nd wife of Dinesh Tudu. 3. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the deceased was murdered and dropped in a well after tying from stone by iron wire. The learned counsel has submitted that the wire, which was used for commission of offence resulting in death, has been recovered from the house of the petitioner and as per the impugned order itself, recovered wire was the same which was used in the commission of the alleged offence as per FSL report. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious and that the trial is in progress. However, out of fifteen charge-sheet witnesses, eight 2026:JHHC:10982 2 have been examined so far in spite of the fact that the charge was framed as back as on 22.11.2022. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected. 6. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of the witnesses before the learned court, so that the matter is taken to a logical end. 7. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district for compliance. 8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 17.04.2026 Uploaded On: Mukul/-