IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1844 of 2025 ------ Nitish Kumar Mandal, aged about 22 years, S/o-Ramrup Mandal, R/o-Kishan Prasad, P.O.-Rampur, P.S.-Sahibganj (M), District- Sahibganj. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 25/03/2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Mufassil P.S. Case No.04 of 2024 registered under sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused person committed dowry death of his wife Rubi Devi. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted that the deceased was a lady of high temperament and on the date of occurrence, when the accused persons suggested the deceased not to use the mobile phone, she left the house to commit suicide but it has wrongly been stated in the post-mortem report that the death of the deceased was by strangulation. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to furnish sufficient security including cash security and also undertakes 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 there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of having committed the murder of Rubi Devi by strangulating her, 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; hence, the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, 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/