Kunti Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Kunti Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh, in connection with Barkatha P.S. Case No. 104/2025 (G.R. No. 2547 of 2025), subject to the five conditions stated in the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody since 12.01.2026 in connection with Barkatha P.S. Case No. 104/2025 (G.R. No. 2547/2025) under Sections 80(2)/3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023 pending before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh, should be enlarged on bail, in view of the FSL report not indicating any poisoning and the cause of death remaining unascertained.

Court's answer

Having heard counsel and considering that the FSL report does not reveal any poisoning, the Court directed the petitioner to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh.

Ratio / Principle

The grant of bail is made subject to conditions: one bailor to be the petitioner's present pairvikar and the other a close relative; attendance in court on each and every date, with even a single default leading to cancellation of the bail bond; deposit of a self-attested copy of the Aadhar Card and mobile number, not to be changed without prior permission; and full co-operation with the proceedings before the court below.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted - Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi, B.A. No. 4240 of 2026 (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.; dated 06.07.2026). Kunti Devi, referred to as the mother-in-law of the deceased and in custody since 12.01.2026, sought bail in Barkatha P.S. Case No. 104/2025 (G.R. No. 2547/2025) for offences under Sections 80(2)/3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023 pending before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh, where charge had already been framed. The FIR suspected death by poisoning, but the postmortem disclosed no external or internal injury, the FSL report received did not indicate any poisoning, and the cause of death could not be ascertained; the State opposed but did not dispute these facts. The Court enlarged the petitioner on bail on a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, imposing conditions: one bailor to be the petitioner's present pairvikar and the other a close relative; appearance on every date with a single default entailing cancellation of the bail bond; deposit of a self-attested Aadhar Card copy and mobile number not to be changed without leave; and full co-operation with the proceedings below.

2026:JHHC:19796

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4240 of 2026

Kunti Devi, Agedabout 40 years, Wife of Govind Ravidas

… … Petitioner

The State of Jharkhand … ... Opp. Party

--- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nawin Kumar, Advocate Mr. Arvind Prajapati, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Vijoy Kr. Sinha, APP

03 /06.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 12.01.2026 in connection with Barkatha P.S. Case No. 104/2025, corresponding to G.R. No. 2547/2025for the offences registered under Sections 80(2)/3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 12.01.2026 and mother-in-law of the deceased aged 40 years and charge has been framed under Section 80(2)/3(5) of the BNS. Learned counsel submits that as per the FIR, it was suspected that the victim died due to poisoning. In the postmortem report there is no external or internal injury on the body of the deceased and FSL report has now been received does not indicate any poisoning. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause of death could not be ascertained.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer, however, hedoes not dispute the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the FSL report also does not reveal any poisoning, the petitioner (mother in law) above named is directed to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh, in

2026:JHHC:19796

connection with Barkatha P.S. Case No. 104/2025, corresponding to G.R. No. 2547 of 2025 on the following conditions:

(i) One of the bailors would be the present pairvikar of the petitioner.

(ii) The other bailor should be his close relative.

(iii) The petitioner will attend the court on each and every date and on account of his single default, the learned court shall cancel the bail bond furnished by the petitioner.

(iv) The petitioner will deposit a self-attested copy of his Aadhar Card along with his mobile number before the learned court which he will not change during the pendency of the case without prior permission of the court.

(v) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings before the learned court below.

6. Let this order along with a copy of the affidavit filed with the bail petition be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/email.

7. The instant bail application is allowed with the aforesaid conditions.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

Dated: 06.07.2026 Uploaded on 09.07.2026 Pramanik/

2