IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.2558 of 2024 ------ 1. Basant Kumar Singh @ Basant Singh Age 38 Years, Son of Prasadhi Singh 2. Anita Devi Age 33 years Wife of Basant Kumar Singh @ Basant Singh, Both Resident of Village Basodih, Post office- Dwarpahari, Police Station- Birni, District- Giridih .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Hargouri Prasad Singh Son of Late Ramchandra Singh, Resident of Village Fhuljora P.O. Pindra P.S. Chandan District Banka, Bihar .... .... .... Opposite Parties With A.B.A. No.3950 of 2024 ------ 1. Shanti Devi Age 64 Years, Wife of Prasadhi Singh 2. Prasadi Singh Age 62 years Son of Chudku Singh @ Katti Singh, Both Petitioner No.1 and 2 Resident of Village Basodih, Post office- Dwarpahari, Police Station- Birni, District- Giridih 3. Tribhuwan Singh Age 58 years son of Late Damodar Singh 4. Manoj Kumar Singh Age 44 years Son of Shree Tribhuvan Singh Both Petitioner No.3 and 4 Resident of Village Nawadih, Post office- Dumma, Police Station- Jamua, District- Giridih .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Hargouri Singh Son of Late Ramchandra Singh, Resident of Village Fhuljora P.O. Pindra P.S. Chandan District Banka, Bihar .... .... .... Opposite Parties With A.B.A. No.3951 of 2024 ------ Govind Kumar Singh @ Govind Singh Age 28 Years, Son of Prasadhi Singh Resident of Village Basodih, Post office- Dwarpahari, Police Station- Birni, District- Giridih .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Hargouri Prasad Singh Son of Late Ramchandra Singh, Resident of Village Fhuljora P.O. Pindra P.S. Chandan District Banka, Bihar .... .... .... Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Prabhash Ch. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, Addl.P.P. (In A.B.A. No.2558 of 2024) Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, Addl.P.P. (In A.B.A. No.3950 of 2024) Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Addl.P.P. (In A.B.A. No.3951 of 2024) For the O.P. No.2 : None ------ Order No.07 Dated- 16-01-2025 Heard the parties. Notice has validly been served upon the opposite party No.2, hence, the service of notice upon the opposite party No.2 is sufficient. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No.583 of 2020 registered under Sections 304B, 498A, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have committed dowry death of the daughter of the complainant namely Sumitra Devi and the said deceased- Sumitra Devi died within seven years of her marriage as her marriage took place in the year 2013 and she died on 04.01.2020 otherwise than under normal circumstances and there is allegation against the petitioners of subjecting the said Sumitra Devi to cruelty and harassment by her husband and his relatives who are the petitioners before this Court in connection with demand of dowry of a Bullet Motorcycle out of which Rs.85,000/- has been paid by the father of the deceased to the father of the husband of the deceased but the father of the deceased could not pay the remaining amount for purchase of the Bullet Motorcycle. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are false. It is next submitted that there is an inordinate delay of three months in filing the complaint. It is further submitted that the complainant and the enquiry witnesses have stated that the case has been instituted for enforcing the promise of creating a bond of Rs.10,00,000/- in the name of the daughter of the deceased. It is further submitted that the deceased died more than seven years of her marriage with Govind Kumar Singh. It is also submitted that in his statement on solemn affirmation, the complainant has stated that the deceased remained in her in- laws’ house peacefully for one and half years. It is next submitted that the complainant in his statement on solemn affirmation has stated that he does not know what was the cause of death of the deceased. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege 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 in his statement on solemn affirmation, the complainant has categorically stated that immediately after the dowry death of the deceased- Sumitra Devi, the complainant went to the police station for institution of the case but police instead of registering the case, suggested that the petitioners should create a bond of Rs.10,00,000/- in the name of the daughter of the deceased and that explains the delay in not instituting the complaint immediately after the death of the deceased. It is next submitted that all the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is made out and there is every chance of the petitioners absconding, if released on bail. Hence, keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against them and the overwhelming evidence and materials which has come on record so far, the petitioners ought not be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. So far as the contention of the petitioners that the complaint could not say about the exact cause of the death of the deceased is concerned, it is the case of the complainant that before his arrival, the petitioners had cremated the dead body of the deceased without any post-mortem so though the complainant is very much aware that his daughter Sumitra Devi died otherwise than under normal circumstances but obviously he could not say; in the absence of any material, as to what was the exact cause of the death of the deceased but the same is of no consequence but the conduct on the part of the petitioners of cremating the dead body of the deceased before the arrival of the complainant and his family members is an aggravating circumstance. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners of having committed the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code as well as their chance of absconding, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/