IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 10160 of 2025 ----------

Dablu Bhuiyan ..… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondents ----------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ganesh Ram, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.

----------

03/16.02.2026 The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail, who is in custody in connection with Herhanj P.S. Case No. 46 of 2023 (S.T. Case No. 55 of 2025) instituted for the offence under Section 302/304(B)/34 of I.P.C.

2. As per F.I.R., arising out of Complaint Case No. 367 of 2023, it is alleged by the Informant that her daughter Anshu Devi was married with the petitioner- Dablu Bhuiyan in the year 2019 and has got one son, aged about 1½ years, but after marriage he started demanding Rs.10,00,000/-as dowry for which Panchayati was held several times, but the accused persons, including the petitioner did not listen. It is alleged that finally on 29.03.2023 the accused persons, including this petitioner, have forcibly given her daughter (i.e. the deceased) pesticide, due to which she had died.

3. Heard Mr. Ganesh Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.P.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. It is submitted that the complaint was filed after a delay of around Four (04) months as the occurrence allegedly took place on 29.03.2023, but the Complaint Case was filed on 13.07.2023, i.e. around after a delay of around Four (04) months. It is submitted that even the father of the deceased and several witnesses, namely Bigni Devi, Bhuneshwar Lohra, Sonia Devi, Gita Devi, whose statements are recorded at paragraph No.s 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Case Diary, have stated that the petitioner used to keep his wife (deceased), but the deceased, namely Anshu Devi used to talk with one Manoj Ram and for which Panchayati was convened. Even the petitioner has agreed to keep her at any cost as they had got one child, but the deceased did not want to live with the petitioner. Hence, on 29.03.2023, when the petitioner, along with his child, has gone to the Doctor for his treatment and the deceased Anshu Devi was alone, then she had consumed pesticide, due to which she died. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 20.01.2025, i.e. around more than one year and hence he may be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner for demanding Rs.10,00,000/- after marriage and for torturing the daughter of the Informant. It is submitted that the Informant, namely Lalo Devi has fully supported her case in her subsequent statement recorded at Paragraph 2 of the Case Diary, however, the learned A.P.P. has fairly submitted that other witnesses, namely Bigni Devi, Bhuneshwar Lohra, Sonia Devi, Gita Devi, whose statements are recorded at paragraph No.s 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Case Diary, have also stated that the deceased did not want to live with the petitioner, rather she used to talk with one Manoj Ram, however, the petitioner was still ready to keep the deceased inspite of all her faults.

6. Perused the F.I.R., the Case Diary and considered the submission of both sides.

7. It appears that the Complaint Case was filed after a delay of about Four months on 13.07.2023 though the alleged occurrence had taken place on

29.03.2023.

8. It also appears that although the Informant has tried to support the case for demand of dowry and for complaining before S.P., Latehar and other officials, however, the witnesses, namely Bigni Devi, Bhuneshwar Lohra, Sonia Devi, Gita Devi, whose statements have been recorded at paragraph No.s 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Case Diary have not supported the case of the Informant.

9. It appears from the statement of Lakhan Bhuiyan, i.e. the father of the deceased a