IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1643 of 2025 ------ 1. Chandrabhan Prasad Sharma, aged about 72 years, s/o late Shiv Narayan Sharma 2. Madhuri Sharma, aged about 66 years, w/o Shri Chandrabhan Prasad Sharma @ C.P. Sharma, Both r/o Green Park, New Area, Morabadi, PO Ranchi University, PS Bariatu, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand 3. Shilip Kumari @ Shilpi @ Shilpi Kumari, aged about 46 years, w/o Shri Vivek Kumar @ Vivek Tiwari, d/o Shri Chandrabhan Prasad Sharma, r/o near Plaza Cinema, HB Road, Lalpur, PO GPO PS Lalpur, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Khushbu Kumari, w/o Shri Prakash Chandra, d/o Shri Rajiv Kumar Rai, r/o Milki Complex, Lal Kothi, Bank More, PO & PS Bank More Dist. Dhanbad, 826001 .... .... .... Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : M/s. Vivek Kumar Rai & Rajesh Kumar, Advocates For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava For O.P No.2 : M/s Prakhar Harit & Divya, Advocates ------ Order No.02 Dated- 17-03-2025 I.A No. 2150 of 2025 Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the I.A. has been filed with a prayer to bring on record the documents which have been annexed to this I.A. Prayer is allowed. Let the documents annexed with the I.A be treated as part of this record. Interlocutory application stands disposed of, accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) A.B.A. No.1643 of 2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Bank More P.S Case No. 223 of 2024 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 85/126(2)/115(2)/ 109/353/3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 being the father-in-law, petitioner no.2 is the mother-in-law and petitioner no.3being the married sister-in-law of the informant treated her with cruelty, in connection with demand of dowry and attempted to murder by strangulating her. It is next submitted that allegations against the petitioners are all false. It is next submitted that there is an inordinate delay of -2- about six days in lodging the FIR and within these periods the informant has fabricated the documents to suit her case. It has further been submitted that the injury report supplied by the medical officer of Sadar Hospital Dhanbad to the investigating officer of this case suggest that the object used to inflict the injury was a hard object, which is contrary to the claim of the informant in this FIR that she sustained injury on her neck being throttled with a rope . It is also submitted that though the informant claims that the son of the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 was also present at the time of alleged occurrence at Ranchi on 10.11.2024 but in fact the son of Prakash Chandra attended the training imparted to him as a micro observer for the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly election, 2024 at Latehar. It has further been submitted that the same falsifies the claim of the petitioner that the son of the petitioner nos. 1 &2 was present at 9.00 a.m on 10.11.2024 at Ranchi. It has further been submitted that the main allegation is against son of the petitioner nos. 1 & 2. The petitioner nos. 1 & 2 are the old persons having no criminal antecedent and Bariatu P.S Case No. 345 of 2017 instituted against them has since been quashed by order dated 02.05.2023 in Cr.M.P No.734 of 2023 by this Court. It has further been submitted that after her marriage the informant stayed in the house of the petitioners only from 26.04.2024 to 2.5.2024 and she used to sleep for 14 to 16 hours and consumed several medicines on the pretext of neck and shoulder pain. The informant insisted the son of petitioner nos.1 & 2 to take transfer either to Dhanbad or to Bhagalpur, if he wishes to resume matrimonial lite. It has further been submitted that informant is undergoing treatment of Dr. Saurav Kumar for last few years for Anger Management, Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia and that is one of the reason for matrimonial dispute between the son of the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 and the informant. It is next submitted that petitioner no.1 is a Physiotherapist and has been retired as Head of the Department, RIMS Ranchi. It is further submitted that petitioner no.2 has undergone a surgery for gall bladder and was advised complete bed rest at the time of alleged occurrence. It has further been submitted that petitioner no.3 used to live separately with her husband and child and had never visited the house of her parents after the marriage of the informant with the son of petitioner nos. 1 & 2. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners undertake to co-operate with the investigation of the case and to furnish sufficient security including cash security and further undertake that they will not annoy or disturb the informant in any manner during the pendency of the case and will not contact her either directly or through anyone-else. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State and learned appearing for opposite party no.2 oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Considering the submissions of learned counsels and the facts and circumstances stated above, I am inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below -3- within six weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrendering, they will be enlarged on bail depositing Rs.10,000/- each as cash security and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Bank More P.S. Case No.223 of 2024 with the condition that petitioners undertake to co-operate with the investigation of the case and to furnish sufficient security including cash security and they will not annoy or disturb the informant in any manner during the pendency of the case and will not contact her either directly or through anyone-else and further conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anjali/