IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.833 of 2025 ------ 1. Hari Prasad Rajwar, aged about 66 years, son of Jugeshwar Rajwar 2. Dulari Devi, aged about 28 years, wife of Hari Prasad Rajwar, Both residents of Ward 6, Village Khardiha, P.O. Adar, P.S. Manjhion, Dist.-Garhwa, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. L. C. N Shahdeo, Advocate Mr. Yash Raj Gupta, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Mahto, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 07-02-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Bardiha P.S. Case No.45 of 2024 registered under Sections 80/3(5) of the B.N.S, 2023, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that petitioners in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons committed dowry death of Arti Kumari. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is further submitted that in the post-mortem report the doctor could not ascertain the cause of death. It is also submitted that petitioners have been implicated in this case only on the basis of concocted story. It is lastly submitted that petitioner is ready and cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioners for committing the dowry death. It is further submitted that there is allegation against the petitioners to harass her in connection of demand of dowry. It is then submitted that there is every chance of the petitioners indulging in different kind of offences, if released on bail. It is then submitted that, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privilege 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 petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Rohit/