Bail application by a husband in custody for alleged dowry death and murder of his wife in her matrimonial home. The court noted direct allegations against him and declined bail.
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:17496
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 5027 of 2026
Manish Pandey @ M.K. Pandey, Son of Bijay Pandey @ Bijay Kumar Pandey @ Vijay Pandey … … Petitioner
Versus
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
--For the Petitioner : Ms. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Nishant Roy, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, Advocate ---
02/17th June 2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Sindri P.S. Case No. 103 of 2023 for the offence registered under Sections 498A, 302, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, now said to have been pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was registered way back in the year 2023 and the petitioner is in custody since 05.05.2026. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is the husband of the victim, who died in her matrimonial home and was declared dead in hospital. As per prosecution case, on 06.11.2023, the son of the informant received a call disclosing that her daughter was not well and they were taking her to hospital and on the same day again a call was received disclosing that the victim had died. After receiving information, they reached Sindri to her matrimonial home, where the dead body of the
1
2026:JHHC:17496
victim was kept. The learned counsel submits that the allegations made against the petitioner are general and omnibus in nature.
3. Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and the case is of the year 2023.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the direct allegation made against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this bail application is rejected.
5. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Dated: 17.06.2026
Uploaded On:
Mukul/-
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, husband of the deceased facing charges under Sections 498A, 302 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, should be enlarged on bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manish Pandey @ M.K. Pandey
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
