IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1121 of 2025 ------ Khushbu Devi, aged about 32 years, Wife of Shiv Kumar Ram, Resident of Vill-Salaia, P.O. & P.S.-Dhanwar, Dist-Giridih. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Raj Kumar Ram, aged about 49 years, S/o Basudeo Ram, R/o Village-Markopa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhanwar, Dist.-Giridih. .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Navneet Sahay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 19/02/2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Protest Cum Complaint Case No.491 of 2022 corresponding to Birni P.S. Case No.183 of 2018 registered under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed dowry death of her sister- in-law Kajal Kumari. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the police after investigation of the case found that the allegations against the petitioner to be not true and submitted Final Form and did not send up the petitioner for trial but on the basis of the Protest Petition, statement on solemn affirmation of the informant and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted that the petitioner is the married Nanad (Sister-in-law) of the deceased who stays at the distance of 1.5 Kms away from the house of the deceased and her husband. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate 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 and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner as has come in the statement on solemn affirmation of the informant and other witnesses of harassing the deceased before her death in connection with demand of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, cash, fridge, T.V. and used to assault her and treat her with cruelty. It is next submitted that the undisputed facts remains that the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage otherwise, then under normal circumstances. It is then submitted that the allegations are sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. It is then submitted that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is an influential person; that there is every chance of the petitioner influencing the witnesses and also absconding, if release on bail. It is, therefore, 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 attending circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/