IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.4726 of 2024 ------ Josna Devi @ Jotsna Devi @ Jyotsna Das, aged about 39 years, Daughter of Sri Akanta Das, resident of Bagan Kuli, Lagda, Puruliya, P.O. Lagda, P.S. Lagda, District-Puruliya (West Bengal). .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No.03 Dated- 27/02/2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Rail Bokaro P.S. Case No.12 of 2024 registered under Section 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, the petitioner, in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons has committed the murder of Lakhi Devi and caused disappearance of the evidence of the murder, by throwing the dead body on a railway track. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that there is no eye witness of the occurrence. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate 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 and submits that keeping in view, the direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioner of committing murder of the deceased, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner as well as the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/