[2025:JHHC:10834] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 3377 of 2024 1. Tilak Mahto, aged about 95 years, son of Late Madho Mahto. 2. Punia Devi aged about 85 years, wife of Tilak Mahto. 3. Mahavir Yadav @ Mahabir Yadav aged about 45 years, son of Tilak Mahto. 4. Sakunti Devi aged about 40 years, wife of Mahavir Yadav @ Mahabir Yadav. All Resident of Village- Harla, P.O. & P.S.- Barhi, Dist.- Hazaribag … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … opp. party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. Shailendra Jit , Adv. For the State : Ms. Snehlika Bhagat, Addl.PP For the informant : Ms. Chandan Upadhyay, Adv. 08 / 08.04.2025 I.A. No. 4235 of 2025 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer for early hearing of the instant anticipatory bail application. Since, the hearing of instant anticipatory bail application is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands disposed of being infructuous. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) ABA No. 3377 of 2024 Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Barhi P.S. Case No. 153 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in furtherance of common intention with the co- accused persons, committed murder of Umni Mosomat and caused disappearance of the evidence of the murder by throwing the dead body, in the water of the dam. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and witnesses during the investigating have stated that consequent upon the petitioners denying the share of the deceased from the property belonging to her husband and driving her away from their house after assaulting her, she committed suicide by jumping into the water of the dam and though she was rescued by some persons, but she could not be saved. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case hence, the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the informant vehemently oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. It is next submitted that during the post mortem, the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained and the viscera report goes to show that there was no metallic, alkaloidal, pesticidal, volatile or non- volatile poison could be detected in the contents of the polythene jar, containing the viscera, which was sent for chemical examination. It is next submitted that even assuming for the sake of argument, the petitioners have abetted the commission of the suicide of the deceased, still the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioners ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious allegations against the petitioners and the requirement of their custodial interrogation during investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-