IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1460 of 2025 ------ Mohan Soren, aged about 22 years, son of Piru Soren, resident of Village Tiasara, P.O. Jumal, Asua, P.S. Rajnagar, District Saraikella- Kharsawan, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kr. Karmakar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 04/03/2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No.35 of 2024 registered under Section 306 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner abetted the suicide of Ahilya Saraswati Murmu. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that there is no overt act attributed to the petitioner which could have led the deceased to commit suicide. It is next submitted that the first set of allegations of forcibly taking the deceased to his house without her consent and dates back to 18.01.2024; for which no report was submitted regarding any abduction or kidnapping. It is next submitted that the marriage of the deceased could not be solemnized; even after the arrival of the bridegroom side, because the bridegroom received a message from a girl that the deceased had married someone else than the bridegroom, but the petitioner is a boy, hence, there is no way, the petitioner could have sent such message to the prospective bridegroom of the deceased. It is next submitted that the petitioner is a student of LBSM College, Jamshedpur. 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 that the petitioner constantly mentally tortured to the deceased from 17.03.2024 to till the date abetting her committing suicide; by making the edited objectionable photographs of the petitioner and the victim viral social media. It is next submitted that the undisputed fact remains that the mobile number, through which the message was sent to the prospective bridegroom of the deceased, intimating him that the deceased married a person other than the bridegroom, was sent from mobile number of the petitioner, hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case in order to find out the details of the case. 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 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.) Abhiraj/