2025:JHHC:16236 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3321 of 2025 ----- 1.Rupa Devi, W/o Rajesh Chaudhary 2.Rajesh Chaudhary @ Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary, S/o Chandu Chaudhary Both R/o Village- Patariya, P.O. Kathal, P.S.- Chainpur, District- Palamau (Jharkhand) .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Md. Faruque Ansari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, AddI. P.P. …...... 04/ 20.06.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application filed by the petitioners praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 apprehending their arrest for the offences under Sections 304(B)/ 34 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no allegation of demand of dowry against these petitioners it is only against the husband. He further submits that as per the postmortem report there is only one lacerated wound on the victim. 4. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the inquest report shows that there are injury marks on the body. 6. This is a case under Section 304(B) of IPC. Admittedly the petitioners are directly involved as there is nothing on record and no prima facie evidence to suggest that they are residing separately. Admittedly, the death has occurred within two years of marriage. As per the F.I.R there is allegation of demand of dowry and the death is unnatural. All the ingredients of Section 304(B) of IPC is made out to presume that the in-laws have committed the offence. 7. Considering the nature of allegation, I find that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No.140 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Palamau at Daltonganj, stands rejected. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./