IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1883 of 2024 ------ Sanjay Giri, aged about 41 years, s/o Dashrath Giri Giri, r/o Village-Ward No.9, Chandra Ghati, P.O.-Kauko & P.S.- Koderma, Dist.-Koderma (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 4256 of 2024 ------ Chinta Devi, aged about 45 years, w/o Prahalad Giri, r/o Village-Govindpur, P.O.-Chouparan & P.S.-Chouparan, Dist.- Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.10 Dated- 20.01.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Chouparan P.S. Case No.26 of 2023 registered under sections 328/ 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner of A.B.A. No. 4256 of 2024 namely Chinta Devi is the gotni (co-sister) of the deceased-Manisha Devi and petitioner of A.B.A. No. 1883 of 2024 namely Sanjay Giri being the brother of Chinta Devi; in furtherance of their common intention have committed the murder of Manisha Devi by administering poison to her. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and in fact, the allegation is that because of frequent quarrel between Chinta Devi and the deceased, the deceased consumed poison. Drawing attention of this Court to paragraph no. 24 of the case diary, it is submitted that after investigation of the case, police found the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code having been made out. It is then submitted that there is absolutely no material to suggest that the petitioners have committed the murder of Manisha Devi and the quarrel between Manisha Devi and Chinta Devi was not of such a nature which could have provoked the deceased to consume poison. It is then submitted that the petitioners have been cooperating with the investigation of the case so police did not find it fit to arrest them for more than a year, after registration of the FIR. It is then submitted that the petitioners undertake to cooperate with the investigation of the case. It is lastly submitted that the co-accused person has already been given the privilege of anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.02.2024 in A.B.A. No.160 of 2024. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be also given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. 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 above named petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribag, in connection with Chouparan P.S. Case No.26 of 2023 with the condition that the petitioners will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish their mobile numbers and a copy of their Aadhar Cards in the court below with the undertaking that they will not change their mobile numbers 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-