Dismissed¶18

Suraj Nayak v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Mar 2026B.A./9893/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suraj Nayak v. The State of Jharkhand; B.A. No. 9893 of 2025; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Justice Sanjay Prasad; regular bail application rejected; Gola P.S. Case No. 62 of 2025; Section 115(2) BNS; Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act; custody since 30.05.2025 (over nine months); deceased consumed poison/phenyl; informant Mannu Ghasi subsequent statement (CD para-3); witnesses Manoj Nayak, Rina Devi, Sagar Kumar (CD paras 4-6) supported informant; bail prayer rejected at this stage on 09.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is the husband, and due to the act of the husband-petitioner the deceased lady had consumed poison substance and died. ¶18

Suraj Nayak Vs State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:6640

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 9893 of 2025

¶3

….

¶4

Suraj Nayak, aged about 21 years, son of Late Vijay Nayak, resident of Nawadih, PO- Bariatu, PS- Gola, District- Ramgarh

¶5

……Petitioner

¶6

Versus The State of Jharkhand ……Opp. Party

¶7

-----

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶9

-----

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A. P. P. ……

¶11

04/09.03.2026 The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail, who is in custody since 30.05.2025 in connection with Gola P.S. Case No. 62 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Section 115 (2) of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is submitted that the petitioner is husband. It is submitted that from the subsequent of the Informant, it would appear that there was dispute with regard to non-preparing the breakfast and for not paying Rs. 50/- only and the deceased has consumed phenyl on her own. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 30.05.2025 i.e. for more than nine (09) months and hence he may be enlarged on bail.

¶14

On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P has opposed the prayer of bail of the petitioner.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from perusal of the records of this case, it appears that the petitioner is

¶16

¶17

2026:JHHC:6640

¶18

the husband and due to the act of the husband-petitioner, deceased lady had consumed poison substance and due to which, she died. 6. It appears from the subsequent statement of the Informant-Mannu Ghasi recorded at para-3 of the case diary and statement of the witnesses namely Manoj Nayak, Rina Devi and Sagar Kumar respectively recorded at para-4, 5 and 6 of the case diary that they have supported the case of the Informant. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected at this stage.

¶19

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶20

Dated :- 09.03.2026 Kamlesh/-

¶21

Suraj Nayak v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Nayak v. 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

Chhotu Pathak Alias Banti Singh Alias Sudarshan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raju Kumar Vs the State of Jarkhand

Jhid Ansari @ MD Jahid @ Aliba Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sita Devi Alias Sita Swansi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Begam Khatoon Alias Sabraton Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Satyendra Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand