Lalan Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

2026:JHHC:20134

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B.A. No. 6279 of 2026

¶4

Lalan Kumar Das, son of Gangadhar Ravidas

¶5

… … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, APP ---

¶9

02 /08.07.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶10

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 31.12.2025 in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 147 of 2026 arising out of Godda Muffasil P.S. Case No. 226 of 2025, registered under Sections 80 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Godda.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although in the First Information Report, there is allegation of demand of dowry and torture, but charge has been framed under section 108 of BNS on 28.04.2026. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner-husband has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶12

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party- State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner is the husband and the victim (wife) died in her matrimonial home within 1 ½ years of marriage and there is allegation of demand of dowry and torture and there is much progress in the trial as till 01.06.2026 out of 10 witnesses, altogether 3 prosecution witnesses have already been examined.

¶13

5. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that some of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile.

¶14

6. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the allegation against the petitioner who happens to be the husband of the deceased and there is allegation of demand of dowry

¶15

2026:JHHC:20134

¶16

and torture of his wife who died in her matrimonial home within 1 ½ years of marriage and that the trial is in progress, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected.

¶17

7. However, the State is directed to ensure that the remaining witnesses are promptly produced before the learned court and if there is any FSL report etc., appropriate steps be taken so that the same be also produced before the learned court.

¶18

8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of police of the concerned district and also to the Director, Prosecution to ensure compliance.

¶19

9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.

¶20

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶21

Date of Order:08.07.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:10.07.2026

¶22

2

Lalan Kumar Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalan Kumar Das 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

Ravi Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Joel @ Jewel Murmu @ Joel Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pintu Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jogendra Rana Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms The Tata Pigments Limited Through Vaidyanathan Natarajan Vs Labour

MD Altaf Vs the State of Jharkhand