2026:JHHC:12527 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3574 of 2026 Haradhan Rajwar @ Haradhan Kumar Rajwar, son of Deglal Rajwar … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Sushma Aind, APP --- 02/29.04.2026 Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 26.12.2025 in connection with S.T. No.163 of 2026 arising out of Madhuban P.S. Case No.106 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 70/2026, registered under Sections 80(2), 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S), 2023, now pending in the court of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge – III, Dhanbad. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is the husband and his wife died in matrimonial home within one year of marriage but it has come during investigation that she wanted to go to her parental house. However, the husband told her that he will take her in her parental house on the next morning, and consequently, she committed suicide. 4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that there is direct allegation against the petitioner. 5. However, from perusal of the F.I.R., this Court finds that there is direct allegation of demand of dowry of Rs.20,000/- and a fridge. The wife of the petitioner has died in the matrimonial home within one year of marriage, and there is direct allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. regarding demand of dowry. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there 2026:JHHC:12527 2 are only 6 witnesses in the case and the date for framing the charge was 06.04.2026, but he is not aware as to whether the charge has been framed or not. He submits that the trial can be expedited. 7. The State is directed to produce the witnesses promptly before the court. 8. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and also to the Director Prosecution to ensure compliance. 9. This bail application is hereby rejected. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Order:29.04.2026 Saurav Date of Uploading:30.04.2026