IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.981 of 2025 ------ Maheshwari Devi W/o Saryu Dangi @ Saryu Mahto aged about 72 yrs D/o- Ramu Mahto Resident of village: Suji Jhapa, P.O: Dadpur, P.S: Chouparan, Distt- Hazaribag, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Suvendu Jaipuriar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated-13-02-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending her arrest in connection with Chouparan P.S. Case No.181 of 2024 instituted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, committed murder of her daughter-in-law namely Nisha Kumari. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the husband of the deceased is employed in Merchant Navy and posted in a ship in USA. It is then submitted that the deceased refused to cohabit with him and she was not inclined to continue with the marriage with her husband- who is the son of the petitioner. It is then submitted that on the date of occurrence, it was forced by her family members to come to her matrimonial home against her wish, hence, just after arrival in her matrimonial house, she consumed poisonous tablets and thereafter, she was taken to the Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh where she died while undergoing treatment. It is further submitted that the petitioner is 72 years old and suffering from several diseases and her husband is also an old person. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-10 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner 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 to the petitioner and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of having assaulted the deceased and the co-accused persons having assaulted the deceased and only thereafter, the deceased took poison and died during the course of treatment; hence, her custodial interrogation 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 privileges 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 privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/