( 2025:JHHC:30551 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 4701 of 2025 Sunita Poyda @ Sunita wife of late Anjan Poyda, aged about 29 years, resident of Chhaya Nagar, Hume Pipe, Near Hari Mandir, P.O. Agrico, P.S. Agrico, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum ...... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party With A. B. A. No. 4769 of 2025 Uttam Chakraborty, aged about 35 years, son of Yadu Nath Chakraborty, resident of H. No. 5, Muslim Basti, Mango, Near Kaleshwar Baba Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Mango, Town-Jamshepdur, District-East Singhbhum ...... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners :Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P. 04/ 26.09.2025: Both the anticipatory bail applications are arising out of same F.I.R., hence, both the cases are being heard together with the consent of the parties. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State. 3. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Golmuri P.S. Case No. 50 of 2025, for the offence registered under sections 108, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case for the suicide made by the husband of petitioner-Sunita Poyda @ Sunita. He further submits that nothing has been stated against the petitioners. On these grounds, he submits that the ( 2025:JHHC:30551 ) 2 petitioners may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that pursuant to earlier order, case diary has been received in which para 16 it is clearly stated that too on the basis of footage of CCTV camera wherein it has come that frequently the petitioners came to the house and thereafter, with tempo and they have taken the husband of petitioner. He further submits that petitioner Uttam Chakraborty has extra marital relationship with the wife of deceased who are the petitioners in these A.B.As. 6. In view of above and looking into para 16 of the case diary it appears that in CCTV camera it has come that frequently the petitioners came in the house and finally with tempo and they have taken the husband of petitioner. Petitioner, Sunita Poyda @ Sunita and petitioner-Uttam Chakraborty has extra marital relationship with wife of the deceased, namely, petitioner Sunita Poyda @ Sunita. 7. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. Dt.26.09.2025 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/