[2025:JHHC:17950] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3345 of 2025 ------ 1. Dhaneshwar Mahto, aged about 69 years, son of Late Sahju Mahto, 2. Sugo Devi @ Sago Devi, aged about 65 years, wife of Dhaneshwar Mahto, Both are residents of House No. 14-A, Village: Sirpa, PO & PS: Angara, District- Ranchi. .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Mahto, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated-04-07-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Tatisilwai P.S. Case No.15 of 2023 instituted under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have again moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. This is the second journey of the petitioners with the prayer for anticipatory bail. Earlier the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners was rejected by this Court vide order dated 01.12.2023 passed in A.B.A. No.5395 of 2023. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile, the petitioners have grown older by one and half years. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes that they will co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that though the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners was rejected by this Court vide order dated 01.12.2023 passed in A.B.A. No.5395 of 2023; but the petitioners did not surrender before the trial court and are absconding. It is next submitted that since the petitioners are absconding and keeping themselves away to evade their arrest, hence, the investigation of the case in respect of the petitioners could not proceed. It is then submitted that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners of committing murder of Shilawati Devi and causing disappearance of the evidence of her death, there is requirement of their custodial interrogation during the pendency of the case to find out the details of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners, their conduct of absconding for more than one and half year even after the prayer for their anticipatory bail was rejected earlier as well as the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioners are rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the order dated 01.12.2023 passed in A.B.A. No.5395 of 2023. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/