Dismissed

Tabir Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Jun 2026B.A./4297/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail plea in a dowry death case renewed on the ground of long custody and delayed trial. Earlier bail had been rejected on merits with a direction to expedite trial. The court declined bail, dismissed the application, and directed the State to promptly produce prosecution witnesses.

What did the court decide?

None; State directed to ensure prompt witness production and communicate order to Director, Prosecution and SP.

Tabir Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:16670

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B.A. No. 4297 of 2026

¶4

Tabir Ansari, aged about 25 years, S/o Kyum Ansari

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---

¶6

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶7

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishnu Prabhakar Pathak, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Ms. Amrita Kumari, Advocate

¶9

¶10

04 /10.06.2026

¶11

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶12

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 08.05.2024 in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 57 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 354 of 2024 relating to S.T. Case No. 214 of 2024 for the alleged offence registered under Section 304B/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge sheet has been submitted on 03.01.2025 and till 24.04.2026 only two prosecution witnesses have been examined and on the next date i.e. 26.05.2026 no witness was produced by the prosecution. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner happens to be the husband of the victim and it is a case of dowry death. He has also submitted that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected on 21.11.2024 in B.A. No. 7239 of 2024 with a direction to the learned trial court to expedite the trial and the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail on the ground of custody.

¶14

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer for and has submitted that the witnesses will be promptly produced before the court.

¶15

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering fact that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier

¶16

¶17

2026:JHHC:16670

¶18

rejected on merits, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶19

6. The instant bail application is rejected.

¶20

7. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of witnesses before the court without fail.

¶21

8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to ensure compliance.

¶22

9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’.

¶23

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶24

10.06.2026

¶25

Rakesh/Uploaded on:-11.06.2026

¶26

Tabir Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tabir Ansari 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabir Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shipra Banerjee And Ors. Vs Om Prakash Lal Gupta

Lukhiram Marandi @ Babulal Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Krishna Kumar Saha Alias Krishna Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manika Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Monu Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand