2025:JHHC:16856 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.7439 of 2024 ------ 1. Dani Oraon, S/o Bande Oraon. 2. Bande Oraon, S/o Late Ghasi Oraon … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Mani Oraon, W/o Birsa Oraon. … … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P. Mr. Navneet Anand, Advocate Mr. Vishal Kumar Binay, Advocate ----- 05/ 25.06.2025 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been preferred by the petitioners apprehending their arrest for offence under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Admittedly, this case arises out of a complaint. 4. Initially the F.I.R. was registered under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners are the husband and father-in-law of the deceased. There is an allegation that the petitioners have committed murder of daughter of the informant, who is the wife of petitioner No.1. 5. The fact which is also relevant is that during investigation, the police has submitted a final report exonerating the petitioners. The informant thereafter protested and filed a complaint. After examining, the complainant and other witnesses, 2025:JHHC:16856 2 on the basis of the said complaint, the Court had taken cognizance and summons have been issued to the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that the petitioners deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail as they have been given a clean chit during investigation. 7. Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel representing the informant submits that the investigation was not done properly in spite of having several materials that these petitioners have committed murder of daughter of the informant. The Investigating Officer for reasons best known has submitted the final report in favour of these petitioners. Further, the case diary would clearly suggest that there are sufficient materials against these petitioners. 8. Admittedly, after the complaint, cognizance has been taken and these petitioners have been issued summons. When summons have been issued after cognizance, there is no apprehension of arrest but the fact remains that when cognizance is taken for an offence which is punishable for life, the Magistrate cannot release the accused on bail. Further, since there is no scope of investigation, the question of custodial investigation does not arise in this case. The Court has to see whether the petitioners will face the trial without creating any hindrance and whether the accused will tamper with the evidence or not. 9. Considering the aforesaid fact, when specific question has been put to the informant, he submits that there is no scope of tampering with the evidence of the informant or the family 2025:JHHC:16856 3 members in this case. Thus, I am inclined to allow this anticipatory bail application. 10. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands allowed. The petitioners, above named, are directed to surrender before the learned court below within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on the event of their surrender or arrest, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), each with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Gumla, in connection with Complaint Case No.32 of 2024, subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be a close relative of the petitioner and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his name or in the name of his ancestors in which he is having share and to that effect, he has to file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating his share in the property. Further, the petitioners will give an undertaking that they will cooperate with the trial and get the charges framed within a month and the Trial Court should try to conclude the trial as early as possible without giving unnecessary adjournment to the parties and the petitioners will appear before the Trial Court as and when directed by the Trial court. It is made clear that if the petitioners do not appear before the Trial Court any day either in person or through the Lawyer, the Court may take appropriate steps to cancel the bail. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant. Cp-3