IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.966 of 2025 ------ 1. Manoj Kumar Singh, aged about 55 years, s/o Arjun Singh 2. Subhodra Devi @ Sobha Devi, aged about 45 years, w/o Manoj Kumar Singh, both are r/o vill. Nawagarh, PO Nawagarh Chati PS Rajdhanwar Dist. Giridih 3. Shanti Devi, aged about 69 years, w/o late Sidheshwar Choudhary, r/o vill. Bhahdurpur, PO Lodharia, PS Tundi, Dist. Dhanbad .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Praful Jojo, Adl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 13-02-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Deori P.S. Case No. 23 of 2023 instituted under Sections 304B/34 of the IPC, the petitioners have 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 no.1 brother-in-law and petitioner no.2 is the sister-in-law and petitioner no.3 being the mother-in-law in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons have committed dowry death of Rinku Kumari. It is then submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that police after investigation of the case has submitted charge-sheet against the husband of the deceased alleging that he has committed the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC . It is lastly submitted that deceased died in her parental house at the time of her death. Hence, the petitioners be given the privilege 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 Rinku Kumari deceased died within seven years of her marriage otherwise then under normal circumstances and there is allegation that she was treated with cruelty and harassed and demanded dowry of Rs.2,50,000/- . Hence, it is submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case, to find out the details of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners as well as 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.) Anjali/