IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1372 of 2025 ------ 1. Vikash Raut @ Vikas Raut aged about 45 Year son of Late Naresh Rout. 2. Nawal Raut @ Neval Rout @ Neval Raut aged about 47 Year son of Late Naresh Rout. 3. Binda Devi @ Vinda Devi aged about 76 Year wife of Late Naresh Rout. 4. Rinku Devi aged about 41 Year wife of Nawal Raut @ Neval Rout, All above are resident of village Bohra, Post Office & Police Station Poraiyahat, District Deoghar, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Umesh Rout son of Late Foudi Rout resident of village Routara, Post office & Police Station Godda (T), District Godda .... .... .... Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Kr. Verma, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 28-02-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with P.C.R. Case No.438 of 2006 (T.R. No.1581 of 2024) registered under Sections 304 B, 306, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have committed the dowry death of the deceased- Jhalo Devi. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that initially, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint and only after an order was passed by the court of Sessions in Criminal Revision No.40 of 2019, the case was remanded back and only after that, the learned Magistrate found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 304 B, 306, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners 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 the undisputed fact remains that the deceased died otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage. It is next submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioners that they demanded dowry of Rs.10,000/- and being influential persons ensured that the police did not register the F.I.R. It is further submitted that keeping in view the direct allegation against the petitioners of committing the dowry death and the fact that they are influential persons; there is every chance of their absconding if given the privileges of anticipatory bail, hence, 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.) Rohit/