[2025:JHHC:10129] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.2143 of 2025 ------ Akshay Kumar Pandey @ A. K. Pandey, Aged about 70 years, Son of Late Sita Ram Pandey, Resident of:- Ranibag, Jara Tola, Ward No.-06, P.O. and P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh (Jharkhand) .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Arun Kr. Pandey, Advocate Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 02-04-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.10 of 2025 registered under Sections 103 (1), 3 (5) of the B.N.S, 2023. 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 persons, committed the murder of his daughter-in-law namely Kavita Devi. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case with ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the petitioner was staying separately from the deceased and her husband and the petitioner also lodged a Sanha with the S.D.M., Ramgarh vide Sanha No.161 of 2021 intimating harassment caused to him by the deceased and her husband. It is next submitted that except suspicion, there is no other material in the record to implicate the petitioner in this case. It is also submitted that the post- mortem report shows that the death of the deceased was a suicidal one. 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 keeping in view the direct nature of allegation against the petitioner of being in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons; committing the murder of Kavita Devi, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to find out the details of the case. Hence, it is 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.) Animesh/