Bail application by the husband accused of murdering his wife under BNS Sections 103(1) and 3(5). The court noted ante-mortem injuries on the body and that the daughter, an eyewitness, supported the prosecution case. Bail was rejected and the sealed-cover FSL report was directed to be transmitted to the trial court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2026:JHHC:17371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 3886 of 2026
Shankar Yadav, aged about 45 years, Son of Babulal Yadav
… … Petitioner
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
--For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu, APP For the Informant : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate ---
06 /16.06.2026
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 13.11.2025 in connection with S.T. Case No. 40 of 2026 arising out of Pathrol P.S. Case No. 130 of 2025, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 103(1) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Madhupur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge sheet has been submitted under Section 108 of BNS and charge has been framed under Section 108, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and alternative Section 103, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. He has also submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the victim and the marriage was solemnized about 18 years back and the petitioner also has children through the victim. He has further submitted that as per the post mortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained. It is also alleged that the victim was poisoned and the sample was sent for FSL examination and by virtue of the order passed by this Court, FSL report has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State in sealed cover.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State and the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted
1
2026:JHHC:17371
that a case for the alleged offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal code was going on between the parties and the post report reveals that ante mortem injury was found over the body and the thyroid cartilage was also found broken. Learned counsels have also referred to the statement of the daughter of the petitioner and the victim and also submitted that she has fully supported the prosecution case and is eye witnesses to the occurrence and has also stated that through cloth, the petitioner and other co-accused tried to throttle the victim.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation and the post mortem also reveals that there were ante mortem injury found over the body of the victim and the daughter of the petitioner, who appears to be eye witness to the incident, supported the prosecution case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
6. The instant bail application is hereby rejected.
7. The FSL report is returned to the learned counsel for the State.
8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to ensure that the FSL report, which has been produced before this Court, is transmitted to the concerned court through the concerned investigating officer.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
16.06.2026 Rakesh/Uploaded on:-18.06.2026
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, husband of the deceased victim and in custody in a murder case under BNS Sections 103(1) and 3(5), should be enlarged on bail.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Shankar Yadav
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
