IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1324 of 2025 ------ Nayan Khamrai, aged about 31 years, Son of Bhola Khamray, Resident of Village- Mistripara, P.O. & P.S.- Chakulia, Dist.- East Singhbhum. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate For the State : Ms. Lily Sahay, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 25-02-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Chakulia P.S. Case No.64 of 2024 registered under Sections 80/3 (5) of the B.N.S., 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the husband of the deceased, has committed the dowry death of his wife Manda Bhalu. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has no role in the death of the deceased. It is next submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are false. It is then submitted that demand of dowry or any unlawful demand is nothing but a bunch of falsehood. 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 there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of harassing the deceased and treating her with cruelty in connection of demand of dowry before her death and the undisputed fact remains that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances. It is next submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. It is also submitted that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the co-accused - who is the mother of the petitioner, has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2025 passed in A.B.A. No.1091 of 2025. 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 as well as the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the 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.) Animesh/