Ashik Ansari Alias Ashif Ansari Alias Asif Ansari Alias Ashique Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:19919

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No. 6144 of 2026

Ashik Ansari @ Ashif Ansari @ Asif Ansari @ Ashique Ansari, S/o Salim Ansari, aged 19 years, R/o Sindwariya, P.O. Leda, P.S. Giridih (M), District Giridih. … … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---

¶7

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, APP

¶8

---

¶9

CAV on 06^th July 2026 Pronounced on 07^th July, 2026 1. This bail application has been filed for regular bail to the petitioner who is in custody since 06.04.2026 in connection with Giridih (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 46 of 2026, for the alleged offence registered under Section 80, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 pending before the court of learned SDJM, Giridih.

¶10

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and denies the allegation made in the first information report. It is also submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and at the time of occurrence the petitioner was at Mumbai at his work place. As per the allegation, demand of dowry was made after two weeks of marriage, but no complaint whatsoever was made by the deceased or by the informant to any authority or before any person or before the society so that the matter could be amicably resolved. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that during the investigation, independent witnesses have stated that the deceased was living in her matrimonial home happily and a few days back, the petitioner went out for work. It has also been submitted that none of the independent witnesses have supported any demand of dowry by the in-laws or any cruelty and torture upon the deceased by the in-laws.

¶11

1

¶12

2026:JHHC:19919

¶13

3. Learned counsel has also submitted that it has been stated in the bail application itself that deceased was not happy for the reason that petitioner went out for work, leaving her, and for that reason she committed suicide. No injury mark was found on her body and as per post mortem report the cause of death was asphyxia by hanging.

¶14

4. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he surrendered before the court on 06.04.2026. He has also submitted that the coaccused i.e. father-in-law and mother-in-law have been granted bail by co-ordinate bench of this Court in B.A. No. 4386 of 2026 vide order dated 26^th May, 2026 and the case of the petitioner is on better footing.

¶15

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite partyState has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the first information report was lodged by the uncle of the deceased who stated that about 3 months earlier he married his niece aged 19 years to the petitioner and also gave Rs.2,00,000/- in cash and articles worth Rs.1,50,000/-. The marriage was solemnized on 01.12.2025. It is alleged that for two weeks, the deceased was kept properly and thereafter, her in-laws including the present petitioner started demanding a motor cycle worth Rs.1,55,000/- and threatened her that if she does not bring the motor cycle, she will be killed. It has also been alleged in the first information report itself that the petitioner used to make demand and threatened even through mobile and the deceased was found dead in her matrimonial home on 24.02.2026.

¶16

6. This Court finds that there is specific allegation made against the petitioner of demand of dowry and threatening through phone and his wife aged 19 years died within 3 months of marriage by un-natural death in her matrimonial home. Merely because the petitioner claims that he was in Mumbai on the date of occurrence has no bearing as there is clear allegation of demand of dowry and threatening by the petitioner even through phone calls and the petitioner is the husband of the deceased. The grant of bail to the co-accused parents’ in-law is on different footing as compared to that of the husband of the

¶17

2

¶18

2026:JHHC:19919

¶19

deceased (petitioner). In aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶20

7. This prayer for bail by the petitioner is accordingly rejected.

¶21

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

¶22

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)