2026:JHHC:1613 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9297 of 2025 ------ Vivek Mishra @ Vivek Kumar Mishra, son of Satish Mishra, resident of Akalwari, P.O. & P.S. Meral, District Garhwa .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opp. Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Nidhi Rani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, A.P.P. ------ Order No.04 / Dated : 21.01.2026 Bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner- Vivek Mishra @ Vivek Kumar Mishra, who is in custody since 16.02.2025 in connection with S.T. No.161 of 2025 arising out of Meral P.S. Case No. 35 of 2025 for the offence registered under Sections 103(1) and 85 read with Section 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa, is pressed into motion. Petitioner is the husband and as per the FIR, marriage was solemnized in the year 2014, and his wife (deceased) died on 15.02.2025 in the hospital. In the FIR which has been lodged by the brother of the deceased, it is stated that the petitioner and other in-laws, total seven in numbers, had committed murder of the deceased. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that the cause of death could not be ascertained during investigation so as to make out a prima facie case that the death was homicidal in nature. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence in support of the prosecution case. It is also argued that the deceased was suffering from unsoundness of mind and she died a natural death. In support of the contention that the deceased was suffering from neurotic disorder, prescription issued by the private Doctor dated 12.06.2024, has been annexed. During trial, children of the deceased were examined as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and they have not supported the prosecution case and in para 2 stated there had been never any quarrel between her mother and father. Testimony of P.W. 2 is also to the same 2026:JHHC:1613 effect. It is contended that they were not declared hostile, therefore, there is no reason to discard their testimony. Learned A.P.P. opposed the bail petition. It is submitted that in the post-mortem examination report, there is evidence of multiple abrasion and bruises. The cause of death in the post-mortem examination report is inconclusive. FSL examination of the viscera does not suggest any evidence of poisoning. The children of the deceased have not supported the prosecution case. 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 21.01.2026