ANIL PRAJAPATI ALIAS ANIL KUMAR ALIAS ANIL KUMAR PRAJAPATI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
B.A./7575/2025 · 2026-01-27
Gautam Kumar Choudhary
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 666 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 666 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:1989 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 7575 of 2025
------ Anil Prajapati @ Anil Kumar @ Anil Kr. Prajapati, son of Phagu Prajapati, resident of Village Vishrampur, P.O. & P.S. Barkagaon, District Hazaribagh
.... .... …. Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opp. Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Krishna Prajapati, Advocate
Ms. Adya Mishra, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, Advocate ------
Order No.07 / Dated : 27.01.2026
Bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner- Anil Prajapati @ Anil Kumar @ Anil Kr. Prajapati who is in custody since 21.02.2025 in connection with S.T. No. 222 of 2025 arising out of Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 35 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. No. 966 of 2025 for the offence registered under Sections 80(2), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Hazaribagh, is pressed into motion.
Petitioner is not the husband of the deceased. As per the FIR, her marriage was solemnized with one Major Kumar on 13.03.2024. It is alleged that this petitioner eloped with the deceased only one month after the marriage and the deceased was last seen on
16.02.2025. On 21.02.2025, the dead body was recovered from a well. It is alleged that the petitioner and his family members committed the offence in reference to dowry demand.
It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that offence of dowry death will not be made out against this petitioner as he was neither married to the deceased nor was related to her husband. Further, it was a case of honor killing of the deceased because of the alleged extra marital relationship with this petitioner.
Learned A.P.P. assisted by the learned counsel on behalf of informant opposed the bail petition. It is submitted that the petitioner had solemnized marriage with the deceased and had demanded Rupees Seven Lakhs.
There is some merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that unless and until the petitioner is married or related to the deceased by the ties of marital relationship, offence under Section 304(B) of the IPC will not be made out. Under the circumstances, the above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/-(Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court below.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit Uploaded 28.01.2026