Afzal Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:19230

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6059 of 2026

Afzal Ansari, S/o Sakur Miyan, aged about 31 years, R/o Village – Jhagri, PO and PS- Giridih (M), District- Giridih, Jharkhand- 815301

¶4

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party ---

¶5

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioner : Mr. S. R. Soren, Advocate For the State : Mr. Praful Jojo, APP ---

¶6

02 /01.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶7

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 11.06.2025 in connection with Giridih (M) P. S. Case No.164 of 2025 (S.T. Case No.513 of 2025) for the offence registered under Sections 80, 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023 and the case is pending in the court of learned District and Addl. Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 11.06.2025 and happens to be husband of the deceased who died in unnatural condition in her matrimonial home.

¶9

4. He further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and the marriage had happened way-back on 18.07.2023 and his wife died on 10.06.2025 and there is no likelihood of any demand of dowry.

¶10

5. During course of argument, it transpired that out of eleven charge-sheeted witnesses, four of them have been examined.

¶11

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that two of the witnesses have turned hostile.

¶12

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the wife of the petitioner died within seven years of the marriage and from bare perusal of FIR, it appears that there is direct allegation of demand of dowry, as such, petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.

¶13

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the allegations made in the FIR with regard to demand of dowry against the petitioner and the wife of the petitioner has been found dead in her

¶14

1

¶15

2026:JHHC:19230

¶16

matrimonial home within two years of marriage, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner above named is rejected.

¶17

9. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses be produced before the Trial Court at the earliest and if any FSL report is awaiting, the same be also produced before the court. 10. Learned APP for the State is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District as well as Director, Prosecution, State of Jharkhand for its compliance. 11. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail.

¶18

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶19

01.07.2026. Uploaded on sandeep/

¶20

2

Afzal Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afzal Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Debashish Kumar Mandal @ Raja @ Devashish Kr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Baleshwar Hazam @ Baneshwar Hazam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Kumar Tanti Vs the State of Jharkhand

Robart Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prakash Oroan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amardeep Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand