IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.6903 of 2024 ------ 1. Ravan Manjhi, aged about 62 years, son of Dubay Manjhi, 2. Pyari Devi, aged about 58 years, wife of Ravan Manjhi. Both are resident of Village Rohar Tola, Karmatand, P.O. and P.S. Petarwar, District Bokaro, Jharkhad. .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate Mr. Aditya Banerjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.04 Dated- 24-03-2025 I.A. No.3470 of 2025 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer for early hearing of the instant anticipatory bail application. Since, the hearing of instant anticipatory bail application is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) A.B.A. No.6903 of 2024 Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Petarwar P.S. Case No.65 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No.420 of 2024 registered under Sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners respectively being the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased- Soni Kumari, in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, have committed the dowry death of Soni Kumari. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the independent witnesses have stated about the quarrel between the deceased and her husband. It is next submitted that the direct allegation is against the husband of the deceased. It is also submitted that the deceased was having love affairs with someone else. 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 seven years of her marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances and there is direct allegation against the petitioners of committing the murder of the deceased for the demand of dowry and treating her with cruelty and harassing her for the demand of dowry. It is also submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case 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 as well as 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.) Animesh/