IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1615 of 2025 ------ Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Mehta, aged about 30 years, S/o Mundrika Mahto @ Mundrika Mehta, R/o-16 Jarangdih, New Shastri Nagar, Bermo, P.O. and P.S.-Bermo, District-Bokaro (Jharkhand). .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Bandana Sinha, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 11/03/2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Hariharganj P.S. Case No.48 of 2024 registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that it is alleged that the petitioner has committed murder of his wife and has caused disappearance of the evidence of murder of his wife by hiding the dead body. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the wife of the petitioner has gone missing and the petitioner immediately lodged missing report with the Mandawali Police Station of Delhi. 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 the petitioner is involved in the murder and causing disappearance of the evidence of murder of his wife and the dead body of the deceased has not yet been recovered, 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/