( 2026:JHHC:20437 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 3170 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3170 of 2026 1. Nandani Devi, aged about 49 years, wife of Sukhdeo Mahto @ Sukhdeo Prasad Verma 2. Sukhdeo Mahto @ Sukhdeo Prasad Verma, aged about 53 years, son of Mitan Mahto Both resident of Village- Bhaluwahi, P.O. Chiknadih, P.S. Hirodih, District- Giridih, Jharkhand … Petitioners -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ramanand Mahto, son of Late Khedan Mahto, resident of Village- Pandeydih, P.O. Gajhi, P.S. Bichkordwa, District- Jamui, Bihar … Opposite Parties ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Amarendra Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Sushma Aind, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, Advocate ----- 03/10.07.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2- informant. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Hirodih P.S. Case No.19 of 2026, registered for the offence under Sections 80(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.2 has already been apprehended and in view of that, he is not pressing this A.B.A. on behalf of petitioner no.2, namely, Sukhdeo Mahto @ Sukhdeo Prasad Verma. 4. In view of this such submission, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner no.2, namely, Sukhdeo Mahto @ Sukhdeo Prasad Verma is dismissed as not pressed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that now this application is confined only for petitioner no.1, who happened to be ( 2026:JHHC:20437 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 3170 of 2026 mother-in-law of the deceased. He then submits that the deceased has committed suicide and there is no role of petitioner no.1 in such suicide and in view of that, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner no.1 may kindly be allowed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State and informant jointly opposed the prayer and submit that it is not only a case of asphyxia. They submit that external injury has also been found on the body of the deceased. They also submit that the witnesses in several paragraphs have supported the case. They next submit that in para 80 of the case diary, in the supervision note it has come that the allegation is true. On these grounds, they submit that the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner no.1 may kindly be rejected. 7. The petitioner no.1 is said to be mother-in-law of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized in the year 2025 and death has occurred on 17.02.2026 i.e. within one year of the marriage. The witnesses in paras 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 of the case diary have supported the prosecution case. In the postmortem report, external injury has also been found on the body of the deceased. In para 80 of the case diary in the supervision note, it has come that the allegation was found to be true. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to petitioner no.1 and, as such, her prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 10th July, 2026 Ajay/