IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1746 of 2025 ------ 1. Mohan Vishwakarma, Aged about 62 years, Son of Late Chhatu Vishwakarma, 2. Saraswati Devi, Aged about 60 years, Wife of Mohan Vishwakarma, Both Resident of Village- Bhendra, P.O. & P.S.- Nawadih, District- Bokaro. .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate Mr. Aditya Banerjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Amrita Kumari, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated-18-03-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Nawadih P.S. Case No.49 of 2024 instituted under Section 80/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons have committed dowry death of Anjana Kumari- their daughter-in-law. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is then submitted that the petitioners were living separately from the deceased and her husband. It is also submitted that since the deceased was married with the son of the petitioners against her wish, she committed suicide. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners 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 to the petitioners and submits that the undisputed fact remains that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances and there is specific allegation against the petitioners of treating her with cruelty and harassing her in connection with demand of dowry of money and a vehicle. It is next submitted that 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 privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners and the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case, this Court is not inclined to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/