IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 729 of 2025 ------ 1. Birbal Mahto, aged about 72 years, S/o Bhola Mahto, Resident of Village –Hisim, P.O. & P.S. –Hisim, Dist – Bokaro (Jharkhand). 2. Ajay Kumar Mahto, aged about 34 years, S/o Birbal Mahto, Resident of Village –Hisim, P.O. & P.S. –Hisim, Dist –Bokaro (Jharkhand) … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Praful Jojo, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 05.02.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners 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 petitioners submits that since the petitioner no.1 –Birbal Mahto has died during the pendency of the anticipatory bail application, he does not press the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner no.1. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the petitioner no.1 –Birbal Mahto is rejected as not pressed. So far as the petitioner no.2 –Ajay Kumar Mahto is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner no.2 that the allegation against the petitioner no.2 is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons committed murder of Neha Kumari by administering poison to her and caused her dowry death and the deceased Neha Kumari died otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner no.2 are all false and the main allegation is against the husband of the deceased and the wife of the petitioner who are alleged to be having illicit relationship. It is then submitted that the deceased was a narrowminded lady and under the suspicion that her husband was having relationship with the wife of the petitioner, she committed suicide. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner no.2 be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner no.2 and submits that anticipatory bail application of the mother of the petitioner namely Rabni Devi has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 27.01.2025 in A.B.A. No. 523 of 2025. It is next submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner no.2 of administering poison to the deceased and as the deceased has stated so to her brother, who is the informant of the case, the same can be treated as her dying declaration. It is then submitted that keeping in view the direct allegation of serious nature against the petitioner no.2, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner no.2 is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner no.2 ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner no.2 and the requirement of his 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 no.2. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner no.2 is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-