IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.4092 of 2024 ------ 1. Manish Goswami, aged about 30 years, son of Chetlal Goswami 2. Chetlal Goswami, aged about 62 years, son of Late Panna Goswami 3. Mina Devi, aged about 52 years, wife of Chetlal Goswami All are resident of Village- Khamdih Tola, Shambhu Chowk, P.O. & P.S.- Satbarwa, District- Palamau. .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate Mrs. Supriya D. Kashyap, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.04 Dated-14-02-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Satbarwa P.S. Case No.23 of 2024 instituted under Sections 306/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 2023, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 being the brother-in-law, petitioner No.2 being the father-in-law and the petitioner No.3 being the mother-in-law committed the dowry death of Anju Devi. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that in the FIR, it has not been mentioned anywhere as to what demand was exactly made by the petitioner. It is then submitted that no mark of violence was found on the dead body of the deceased at the time of postmortem. It is further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate 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 to the petitioners and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of treating the deceased with cruelty and harassing her in connection with demand of dowry and the deceased died within seven years of her marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances; hence, their custodial interrogation is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. Hence, it is 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 to find out the details of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/