IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.4093 of 2024 ------ Kanti Kumari @ Kanti Devi, aged about 42 years, W/o- Sanjay Kumar, Resident of Village- Boga, P.S. & P.O.- Ichak, District- Hazaribagh. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ayush Kr. Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, Addl.P.P For the Informant : Mr. Nilendu Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No.07 Dated-14-02-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending her arrest in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No.126 of 2023 corresponding to S.T. No. 500 of 2023 instituted under Sections 302/307/325/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons committed murder of Akhilesh Kumar and attempted to murder Ritesh Raj. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the main assailant was Sanjay Kumar Mehta. It is then submitted that the petitioner is a female and due to family dispute, the name of the petitioner has been implicated in this case. It is then submitted that postmortem report shows that there is only single injury sustained by the deceased. Drawing attention of this court towards para-18 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate 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 to the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of also being armed with sharp cutting weapons, attacking the deceased and Ritesh Raj; hence, her custodial interrogation is required during the investigation of the case for recovery of the weapons as well as to find out the further details of the case. Hence, it is 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 her custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case for recovery of the weapons as well as to find out the details of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/