( 2025:JHHC:15215 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 3978 of 2025 ------ Anita Devi, aged about 51 years, wife of Ramdev Hajra @ Ramdev Paswan, resident of Village –Teliadih, P.O. – Lakhoria, P.S. –Sarwan, District –Deoghar. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 11.06.2025 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Sarwan P.S. Case No.41 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under sections 307/326/436/504 of Indian Penal Code and charge has been framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed murder of her daughter-in-law –Kavita Devi by setting fire to her. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and though the informant who has died subsequently in her written statement has categorically stated that the petitioner set her on fire but the brother of the deceased in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that the deceased told him that she caught fire while cooking food in her house, hence it is a case of accidental burning. It is then submitted that the deceased died 20 days after her catching fire. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the written report itself is the dying declaration of the deceased and therein the deceased has categorically stated that she was set on fire by the petitioner and there is every chance of the petitioner tampering with the evidence and absconding, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the chance of his tampering with the evidence and absconding, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu-Gunjan/