IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.5799 of 2024 ------ 1. Kusum Kumari @ Kusum Devi, aged about 26 years, W/O- Nandlal Yadav @ Nandlal Kumar, R/O-Shahpur Road, Yamuna Nagar, P.O. + P.S.-Dist. Aurangabad, Bihar 2. Chinta Devi, aged about 32 years, W/O-Amresh Yadav, R/O- Village Dubaridih, PS & PS-Hariharganj, Dist.-Palamu, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl. P.P ------ Order No.07 Dated- 25.02.2025 I.A. No.2235 of 2025 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory application has been filed for not pressing the prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner No.2 namely Chinta Devi as she has been arrested. Prayer is allowed. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands rejected as not pressed in respect of the petitioner No.2 namely Chinta Devi. This interlocutory application stands allowed accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) A.B.A. No.5799 of 2024. Heard the parties. Apprehending her arrest in connection with Hariharganj P.S. Case No.09 of 2022 instituted under Sections 302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner No.1 namely Kusum Kumari @ Kusum Devi has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner No.1 namely Kusum Kumar @ Kusum Devi is that the petitioner no.1 in furtherance of common intention with the co- accused has committed murder of Urmila Devi by manual strangulation. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner no.1 is false. It is submitted that petitioner no.1 is the married nanad of the deceased and resides in her matrimonial house and she has falsely been implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion. It is further submitted that that there is allegation against the petitioner no.1 that petitioner no.1 was demanding money from the deceased but no date, time and place of demand has been mentioned in the F.I.R. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner No.1 undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner No.1 be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner No.1 and submits that when the illegal demand of the petitioner no.1 was continuous one, it is not humanly possible to mention each of the time, date and place of innumerable occurrences with graphic details. It is next submitted that undisputed fact remains that deceased died because of manual strangulation. It is further submitted that it is to be ascertain that during the investigation of the case; as to who strangulated the deceased. It is then submitted that, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner no.1 is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner no.1 ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner no.1, as well as 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 petitioner no.1 be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the petitioner no.1 is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Rohit/