IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 523 of 2025 ------ Rabni Devi @ Rabati Devi, aged about 66 years, W/o Birbal Mahto, Resident of Village –Hisim, P.O. Hisim, P.S. Kasmar, Dist –Bokaro (Jharkhand) PIN-827302 … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate : Mr. Sanket Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.05 Dated- 27.01.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Kasmar P.S. Case No.71 of 2024 registered under sections 80/123/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed the murder of her daughter-in-law –Neha Kumari by administering poison to her and caused her dowry death and she died otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the main allegation is against the husband and daughter-in-law (gotani) of the deceased who are alleged to have illicit relationship. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. P.P. vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that there is direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioner of administering poison to the deceased and as the deceased has stated so to his brother who is the informant of the case; the same can be treated as her dying declaration. It is then submitted that in view of the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of her custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-