[2026:JHHC:27995] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 5159 of 2026 1. Lalsera Bibi @ Lasera Bibi, aged about-50 years wife of Fazle Shekh @ Fzle Rahman, Resident of Village-Gouripur, P.O. Sitapahari, P.S. Malpahari, District- Pakur. 2. Sefali Khatun @ Sivali Khalna, aged about-18 years Daughter of Fazle Shekh @ Fzle Rahman, Resident of Village Gouripur, P.O. Sitapahari, P.S. Malpahari, District Pakur. ..... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P. ------ 05/ 16.09.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 101 of 2026, registered for the offence under Sections 80(2), 126(2), 117(2), 352, 351(3) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned ACJM, Pakur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 is mother-in-law and petitioner No. 2 is sister-in- law of the deceased. He next submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and false allegations are made of torture and assault. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioners. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that there is direct allegation against these petitioners as well as husband of the deceased. She next submits that even prior to the occurrence, the torture was going on and that has been stated in the FIR itself. On these grounds, she submits that anticipatory [2026:JHHC:27995] -2- bail may kindly be rejected. 5. On perusal of the FIR, it transpires that the allegations are there of torturing the daughter of the informant against all the accused persons and threatening was also issued of murder and divorce and in view of such allegation, at one point of time, the informant has taken her daughter at her place and when she left for Chennai for earning her livelihood, the husband of the daughter of the informant has again allured the daughter of the informant and taken her to her matrimonial house and subsequently, the husband has informed the informant on 16.06.2026 that her daughter is not well and asked her to take away for her treatment. It is also alleged that when she reached to the matrimonial house of her daughter, the informant and her daughter have also been assaulted by the mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in- law and husband of the daughter of the informant and subsequently, the daughter of the informant has died. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-16.09.2026 Amitesh/-