IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3832 of 2024 ------ Arti Devi, aged about 31 years, w/o Narayan Kumar Mahto, r/o P.O.-Karma, P.S.-Mandu, Dist.-Ramgarh … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sidharth Roy, Advocate : Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, Addl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Niraj Kr. Mishra, Advocate : Mr. Nehru Mahto, Advocate : Mr. Ashutosh Anand No.2, Advocate ------ Order No.06 Dated- 11.02.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Mandu (Kujju) P.S. Case No.88 of 2023 registered under sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed murder of Raj Kumar and caused disappearance of the evidence of the murder. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is also submitted that only because a couple of days before the commission of suicide by the victim, the petitioner and others assaulted him after he was tied to an electric pole for a considerable period of time, under the sun, on the suspicion that the petitioner might have committed the murder of the deceased, she has been implicated in this case. It is next submitted that as per the postmortem report, the cause of death of the deceased was due to asphyxia because of hanging. It is then submitted that there is considerable period of time gap between the alleged assault made by the petitioner on the deceased at about 11:00 am of 18.04.2023 and his suicide at 03:00 am of 20.04.2023 therefore, the commission of suicide cannot be attributed to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a female. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to furnish sufficient security including cash security and also undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of her arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, she shall be released on bail on depositing cash security of Rs. 10,000/- and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M., Ramgarh, in connection with Mandu (Kujju) P.S. Case No.88 of 2023 with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish her mobile number and a copy of her Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that she will not change her mobile number during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-