IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.4812 of 2024 ------ 1. Kani Mandal @ Thanda Mandal/Devi, wife of Sri Manu Mandal, aged about-49 years, 2. Manu Mandal, son of Late Sripati Mandal, aged about 60 years, Both resident of Kangalo, P.O. K.G. Ashram, P.S. Saraidhela, Distt. Dhanbad. .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party With A.B.A. No.4814 of 2024 ------ Shibu Mandal son of Manu Mandal, aged about 29 years, Resident of Jelaldgora, P.O. K.G. Ashram, P.S. Saraidhela, Distt. Dhanbad. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanddip Barnwal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, Addl.P.P. : Mr. Sanat Kr. Jha, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No.08 Dated- 20/03/2025 Heard the parties. Since both these anticipatory bail applications have been filled with the same prayer, hence, these anticipatory bail applications are disposed of by this common order. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No.98 of 2024 instituted for the offences punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 and 2 of A.B.A. No.4812 of 2024 being the mother-in-law and father-in-law and the petitioner of A.B.A. No.4814 of 2024 being the brother-in-law (Devar) of the deceased Asthami Kumari committed the dowry death of deceased Asthami Kumari. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioners were living separately from the deceased and her husband. It is further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate 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 and submits that the undisputed fact remains that the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances and there is allegation against the petitioners of demanding dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-, hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are required during the investigation of the case in order to find out the details of the case. It is, therefore, 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, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/