IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 1047 of 2025 Parwati Devi @ Parwati Devi, aged 55 Years, wife of Late Pramod Kumar Munna, resident of Village- Junpokhar, P.O. -Deoghar, P.S. - Deoghar (Town) District Deoghar. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … opp. Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Roy, Adv. For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, Addl. PP 02 / 19.02.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Deoghar P.S. Case No. 483 of 2022 registered under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of the common intention with the co-accused persons, has committed dowry death of Juhi Devi. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased and she was living separately from the deceased and her husband and the petitioner is a widow. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of the occurrence and the petitioner is ready to co- operate with the investigation of the case hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner used to demand dowry and in connection of the same, used to assault the deceased before her death and the deceased died within seven years of her marriage, otherwise than under normal circumstances hence, in view of serious allegation against the petitioner, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-