IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.931 of 2025 ------ 1. Rumana Khatoon @ Rumana Pravin aged about 27 years wife of Md. Badruddin, resident of village Fulasu, P.O. and Police Station- Balumath, District- Latehar 2. Sabana Pravin @ Sabana Khatoon aged about 25 years wife of Ali Hussain resident of village Lakhna, P.O. and Police Station Barhi, District- Hazaribagh .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 11-02-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Rajpur P.S. Case No.32 of 2021 registered under Sections 341, 323, 304 (B), 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners being the married sisters-in-law (Nanad) of the deceased Ruby Khatoon, in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, committed the dowry death of the said Ruby Khatoon. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false and general and omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that the petitioners are female. It is also submitted that the co-accused persons, during the course of investigation against whom it was found that they were residing in separate house than that of the deceased, have been given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners 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 specific allegation against the petitioners of committing the dowry death of the deceased being their sister-in-law and undisputedly the deceased died within seven years of her marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances and there is allegation of demand of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- against the petitioners. Hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. It is next submitted that this Court has rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail of the mother-in-law the deceased. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners and the 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 above-named petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/