Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7190 (JHR)

SUBHASH ORAON v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

B.A./3335/2026 · 2026-04-27

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:JHHC:12235 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3335 of 2026 Subhash Oraon, aged about 25 years Son of Bandhan Oraon Resident of Vill. Barikhap, P.O. and P.S. Bariyada, Dist. Latehar … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kumar Chaturvedy, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, Addl.P.P. --- 06/27.04.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 25.092025 in connection with Bariyatu P.S. Case No. 45 of 2025 (S.T. Case No. 17 of 2026) for the offences registered under Sections 103(1) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar. 3. The petitioner is the husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the victim has died in the matrimonial home within less than six months of marriage but cause of death is not clear. However, the charge has been framed under section 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He has further submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and there is no demand of dowry as per the First Information Report. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that in First Information Report itself there is allegation that the victim was repeatedly assault by the petitioner. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the victim being the wife of the petitioner expired within six months of marriage in matrimonial home due to unnatural death and there is allegation of repeated assault by the petitioner, in the First Information Report itself, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 2 2026:JHHC:12235 6. At this the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the next date in the court below is 20.05.2026. He submits that appropriate order be passed so that the witnesses are promptly produced. 7. The State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the learned trial court. 8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and also to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 9. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 27.04.2026 Uploaded on: 27.04.2026 MM/