IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 8112 of 2024 Saraswati Sinha, aged about 63 years, wife of Ramnikant Sinha, resident of village Bhandro, P.O.-Kura & P.S.-Pindrajora, District- Bokaro. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Adv. Ms. Nirupama, Adv. For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh , Addl.PP 02 / 16.01.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint cum Protest Petition No. 423 of 2023 registered under Sections 304B, 498A, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed dowry death of Moushmi Kumari. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the police after investigation of the case, found the allegations to be not true but on the basis of the protest cum compliant petition, the statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, learned Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 304 B of IPC besides the offence punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and 120B of IPC. It is next submitted that the deceased died of 59% burn injuries which she sustained by her Sari caught fire from Diya while performing Sandhya Puja. It is next submitted that the independent witnesses have stated about the accidental death of the deceased. It is next submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the trial of the case hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that she along with her son, was demanding dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/- and treating the deceased with cruelty and harassing her immediately before her death and the deceased died otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage. It is then submitted that, mere delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is next submitted that there is every chance of petitioner absconding, if released on bail. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner and chance of the petitioner absconding if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-