IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1756 of 2024 ------ 1. Bijay Pandey @ Bijay Kumar Pandey, aged about 59 years, s/o Late Ram Ekbal Pandey 2. Meena Devi, aged about 56 years, w/o Bijay Pandey @ Bijay Kumar Pandey Both are r/o Qr. No. DK4-145, P.O.+P.S.-Sindri, Dist.- Dhanbad … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 1755 of 2024 ------ Manish Pandey @ Manish Kumar Pandey, aged about 40 years, s/o Bijay Pandey @ Bijay Kumar Pandey, r/o Qr. No. DK4-145, P.O.+P.S.-Sindri, Dist.-Dhanbad … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.10 Dated- 20.01.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Sindri P.S. Case No.103 of 2023 registered under sections 498A/ 302/323/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code. The Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that petitioner of A.B.A. No. 1755 of 2024 being the husband and the petitioners of A.B.A. No. 1756 of 2024 being respectively the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased-Archana have committed the murder of Archana. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are all false and the son of the deceased respectively of 9 years and 5 years have not stated anything to incriminate the petitioners, though they were living in the same house where Archana died. It is further submitted that in the postmortem report the cause of death has been kept reserved till the report of viscera is received. It is next submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 20 of the anticipatory bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of having committed the murder of Archana. It is then submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. that the postmortem report of the deceased shows that the deceased died a homicidal death and several ante mortem injuries were found on her dead body. Therefore the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners of having committed the murder of Archana and the requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioners during the investigation of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-