IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3131 of 2024 ------ Sadar Khan aged about 36 years, Son of Chhedan Khan, Resident of vill-Katri, P.O. and P.S.-Gumla, District-Gumla. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kr. Sinha, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No.05 Dated- 05/03/2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Gumla Mahila P.S. Case No.06 of 2024 registered under Section 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused person committed dowry death of Tarnum Parveen. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the main allegation is against the co-accused persons and the co-accused persons have been admitted to regular bail. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the undisputed facts remains that the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances and there is direct allegation against the petitioner of treating the deceased with cruelty and harassing her in connection with demand of dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and a Apache Motorcycle. It is next submitted that the witnesses have supported the same and even co-accused in her confessional statement also stated that the petitioner harassed the deceased in connection with demand of dowry, hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case in order to find out the details of the case. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/