Allowed

Nitish Ranjan v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Jul 2026A.B.A./2372/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband and mother-in-law sought anticipatory bail in a dowry cruelty case where the FIR was lodged in 2026 over allegations of 2022. Noting delay, cooperation with investigation, medical evidence showing no complaint of assault during the relevant period, and Arnesh Kumar guidelines, the court granted anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to both petitioners: surrender within three weeks; bail bond Rs.25,000 each with two like sureties, subject to Section 482(2) BNSS conditions.

Nitish Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:20059 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2372 of 2026

¶3

Nitish Ranjan, aged about 38 years, son of Bhola Prasad Gupta, resident of 33-B, P.T.C. Road, Behind Meena Kutir, P.O. Matwari, P.S. Korra, DistrictHazaribagh … Petitioner

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party With

¶6

Nirmala Gupta @ Nirmla Gupta, aged about 58 years, wife of Bhola Prasad Gupta, resident of 33-B, PTC Road, Behind Mina Kutiz, P.O. Matwari, P.S. Korra, District- Hazaribagh … Petitioner

¶7

-Versus-

¶8

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶10

For the Petitioners : Ms. Aprajit Bhardwaj, Advocate (In both cases)

¶11

Mr. Akash Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A.P.P. (In A.B.A.-2372/26) Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. (In A.B.A.-3664/26)

¶12

For the Informant : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate (In both cases)

¶13

Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra, Advocate

¶14

Mr. Ujjwal Jaipuriar, Advocate Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate

¶15

06/08.07.2026 Both the A.B.As. are arising out of the same FIR and in view of that,

¶16

both the A.B.As. are being heard together with consent of the parties.

¶17

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant.

¶18

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Mahila Sadar P.S. Case No.01/2026 dated 02.01.2026, registered for the offence under Sections 85, 89, 115(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Hazaribagh.

¶19

-1-

¶20

A.B.A. No. 2372 of 2026

¶21

With

¶22

A.B.A. No. 3664 of 2026

¶23

( 2026:JHHC:20059 )

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner in A.B.A. No.2372 of 2026, namely, Nitish Ranjan is the husband of the informant and the petitioner in A.B.A. No.3664 of 2026, namely, Nirmala Gupta @ Nirmla Gupta is the mother-in-law of the informant. She further submits that the allegation is of the year 2022, whereas, the FIR has been lodged on 02.01.2026. She then submits that there are general and omnibus allegations against the entire family members. She next submits that the petitioners are cooperating in the investigation and they will also cooperate in the investigation. She also submits that in the case diary, the doctor who has examined the informant, has clearly stated that during the period between 10.05.2022 and 23.01.2023, no complaint of assault was made by the informant to the concerned doctor. On these grounds, she submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioners.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the State and informant jointly opposed the prayer and submit that the allegations are there of miscarriage of pregnancy as well as torture and in view of that, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners may kindly be rejected.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the informant further submits that the I.O. was not required to give notice to the petitioners under Section 35(3) of the BNSS as the FIR has also been registered under Section 89 of the BNS.

¶27

On perusal of the FIR, it transpires that the allegations are of the year 2022, whereas, the FIR has been lodged on 02.01.2026. The Court has perused the case diary and finds that there are replies of the petitioners before the Investigation Officer that they will cooperate in the investigation. From perusal of the case diary, it also transpires that the mother-in-law of the

¶28

-2-

¶29

A.B.A. No. 2372 of 2026

¶30

With

¶31

A.B.A. No. 3664 of 2026

¶32

( 2026:JHHC:20059 )

¶33

informant is having some ailments and the documents to that effect are also part of the case diary. At page 84 of the case diary, the Medical Officer, who has examined the informant, has clearly stated that during the period between 10.05.2022 and 23.01.2023 no complaint of assault has been made by the informant before the Medical Officer. It has been pointed out that the petitioners are cooperating the investigation and they will further cooperate in the investigation. Prima facie, the case of the petitioners are coming within the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another , reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 . In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶34

Accordingly, both the above-named petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned Court within three weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrender, they shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Hazaribagh in connection with Mahila Sadar P.S. Case No.01/2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶35

Accordingly, both the applications are allowed and disposed of.

¶36

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶37

Dated: 8^th July, 2026 Ajay/

¶38

-3- A.B.A. No. 2372 of 2026 With

¶39

A.B.A. No. 2372 of 2026

¶40

A.B.A. No. 3664 of 2026

Nitish Ranjan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitish Ranjan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Kumar Saw Vs the State Ofjharkhand

Fatik Chandra Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nagendra Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Arun Ram Alias Arun Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Niranjan Rawani Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dinesh Singh Bhokta @ Vineshwar Kumar Bhokta Vs the State of Jharkhand