( 2026:JHHC:12839 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 1093 of 2026 Devesh Kumar Ranjan @ Devesh Kr. Ranjan, aged about 35 years, son of Ram Karan Ranjan … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P. For the Informant Ms. Khushboo Kumari, Advocate --- 06/30.04.2026 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 S.T. No. 717 of 2024 arising out of Sukhdeonagar (Pandara O.P.) P.S. Case No. 342 of 2024, for the offences registered under Section 304(B) of IPC, pending in the court of learned A.J.C.-VI, at Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband of the victim whose bail application was earlier withdrawn and subsequently it was rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this court. 4. He has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case only because he is the husband. Rather the victim committed suicide in her matrimonial home on account of torture by her own father. There is another FIR in connection with such allegation. 5. He has also submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 05.08.2024 and there are 22 charge sheeted witnesses and only 13 have been examined so far. 6. The learned counsel for the informant while opposing the prayer has submitted that the petitioner himself took steps to delay the trial in as much as they did not cross examine one of the witnesses to which they filed a petition for recall and ultimately that petition for recall has also been dismissed. She submits that she has no objection if ( 2026:JHHC:12839 ) 2 any observation regarding expeditious trial of the petitioner be given provided that the petitioner will co-operate with the expeditious trial. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the victim suffered unnatural death in her matrimonial home within six months of marriage. However, the State is ready to produce the witnesses. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this court finds that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on merits observing that there was allegation against the petitioner that he was torturing his wife for demand of Rs. 25 lacs and a flat standing in her name be transferred in the name of the petitioner. This court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected. 9. However, the State is directed to promptly produce the remaining witnesses. 10. The learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution and Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance. 11. Certainly, the question of expeditious trial of the petitioner would arise only if the petitioner also co-operates with the trial. 12. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 30.04.2026 Uploaded on: 01.05.2026 Binit/