2025:JHHC:20555 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2669 of 2025 ----- 1. Gulbi Mosomat @ Gulbi Devi, W/o Late Bishun Ram, 2. Anar Bhuiyan @ Anar Ram, S/o Late Bishun Ram, 3. Faugi Bhuiyan @ Guddu Kumar, S/o Anar Bhuiyan, All are Residents of:-Village-Bedam, Office-Daroo, Police Station: Tatijharia, District-Hazaribag. .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, Addl. P.P. …...... 04/ 24.07.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with Tatijharia P.S. case No.74 of 2024, for offences under Sections 103(1)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The case is presently pending before the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh. 3. The case of prosecution is that based on the written application dated- 09.10.2024 by Most Hiriya to the Officer-in-Charge of Tatijharia Police Station. She alleged that her daughter became “bhaktin” (devotee), which her in-laws opposed and even threatened to kill her, and called her a 'witch'. She further claimed that her daughter’s mother-in-law hit her on the head with a stick, causing injury. On 3rd October 2024, during Durga Puja while her daughter was fasting, the accused allegedly strangulated her to death and did not inform the informant. When her mother later on was informed she went to her matrimonial house where the accused were preparing for her funeral and they did not allow her to see the body. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are completely innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. He also submits that the petitioners have been implicated in this case only on basis of suspicion. He also submits that the postmortem report does not support the claim of strangulation. Instead, it shows that the cause of death was poisoning due to drinking alcohol. He further submits that there is a delay in lodging the case as the occurrence is of 04.10.2024 whereas the case was lodged on 09.10.2024 without any reasonable explanation. 5. The learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the petitioners are not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail. He further submits that the witnesses examined under Section 180 of BNSS supported the prosecution's case. He further submits that the case diary also contains material suggesting involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offence. 6. After hearing the parties and from the perusal of the record, I find that the witnesses at paragraphs 10 to 13 in the case diary have supported the prosecution case. Further, there is earlier incident of assault also upon the deceased and it is fact that the death occurred inside house of the deceased. Further from the impugned order, I find that the Trial Court observed from the postmortem report that the death was due to poisoning. On perusal of the FSL report, I find that Dimethoate, Chlopyrifos along with Cypermethrin were detected in the viscera of the deceased. Thus, the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature which needs investigation, even custodial investigation. Hence, the court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to them. 7. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./