IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1524 of 2025 ------ Usha Kumari @ Usha Devi, aged about 27 years, wife of Diwakar Sharma, resident of village- Baskatiya, ward-08, Uchaila, P.O. & P.S.- Rohtas, District- Rohtas, Bihar. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 06-03-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Pandu P.S. Case No.09 of 2024 registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed the murder of Nirmala Devi by administering poison to her, the petitioner being the second wife of the husband of Nirmala Devi. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that though the informant claims to have the knowledge of commission of the murder by the petitioner of Nirmala Devi; from the daughter of Nirmala Devi namely Chandani Kumari but in her statement, the said Chandani Kumari has stated that she has not seen anybody administering poison to her mother. It is further submitted that the deceased herself committed suicide by consuming poison. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate 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 since the petitioner is absconding and has left the house of her husband and residing in Bihar and in view of direct allegation against the petitioner of committing the murder of Nirmala Devi, her custodial interrogation is required during the investigation of the case 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 as well as the requirement of her 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.) Animesh/