IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.964 of 2025 ------ 1. Soma Devi, aged about 45 years, w/o Birendar Sharma @ Birendar Mistry 2. Birendar Sharma @ Birendar Mistry, aged about 50, s/o late Mathura Sharma 3. Santosh Kumar Sharma, aged about 22 years, s/o Birendra Sharma @ Birendar Mistry All are r/o Mohalla-Dwarikapuri Road No.12, PO & PS Chutia, Dist. Ranchi .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, Adl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 13-02-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No. 184 of 2024 instituted under Sections 80(2)/61 of BNS, 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 in criminal conspiracy with co-accused persons have committed dowry death of Nisha Kumari. It has been further submitted that allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that petitioner nos.1 & 2 are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased and petitioner no.3 is the unmarried brother-in-law (Dewar) of the deceased. It is then submitted that petitioner nos.1 & 2 are living in the ground flour of the same building while petitioner no.3 had no connection with the domestic affairs of the deceased. It has further been submitted that deceased committed suicide because of her quarrel with her husband and 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 deceased died within seven years of her marriage otherwise than normal circumstances. It has further been submitted that there is allegation of treatment of cruelty meted out to the deceased and also harassment of the deceased in connection of demand of dowry before her death. It is next submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioners are 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/