IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3383 of 2024 ------ 1. Sarwati Khatoon @ Sarwari Khatun, aged about 28 years, d/o late Rajul Khan 2. Tabrej Khan, aged about 32 years, s/o late Rajul Khan 3. Parwej Ansari @ Prawej Ansari @ Prawej Khan, aged about 21 years, s/o late Rajul Khan All three resident of Village-Katri, P.O. & P.S.-Gumla, Dist.-Gumla, Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Md. Samshre Ansari, aged about 40 years, son of Ashraf Ansari, r/o (Present Address), Village-Ambwa, P.O. & P.S.- Gumla, Dist.-Gumla … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.09 Dated- 07.03.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have 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 petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused person committed dowry death of Tarnum Parveen. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners 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 petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate 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 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 petitioners 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 petitioners harassed the deceased in connection with demand of dowry, hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case in order to find out the details of the case. It is also submitted that the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the co-accused- Sadar Khan was rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2025 in A.B.A. No.3131 of 2024. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners and the requirement of their 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 petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-