IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.2023 of 2025 ------ 1. Abdul Jabbar Ansari, S/o Hayat Ansari, age- about 55 years 2. Safina Khatoon, W/o Abdul Jabbar Ansari, age- about 50 years Both resident of – Hutap, P.O. + P.S.- Khalari, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Sonal Pandey, Advocate ------ Order No.02 Dated- 27-03-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Khalari P.S. Case No.102 of 2024 registered under Sections 118 (1), 118 (2), 109 (1), 85, 3 (5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioners, in furtherance of common intention, have committed the dowry death of Farjana Khatoon- their daughter-in-law. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is next submitted that the petitioners never demanded any dowry and a false allegation of demand of dowry has been made against them. It is further submitted that the petitioners were living separately from the deceased and her husband and the deceased in her dying declaration has categorically stated that she was burnt by her husband. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State being assisted by the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submit that the undisputed fact remains that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances. It is further submitted that there is direct allegation of demand of dowry of a motorcycle against the petitioners and they were demanding dowry and treating the deceased with cruelty in connection with the said demand of dowry. Hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. It is , therefore 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, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/