[ 2026:JHHC:9061] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 6049 of 2025 Priti @ Priti Devi @ Priti Kumari, Aged about 49 years, W/o Mahaveer, R/o Gangarauli, Dehat, P.O. and P.S.-Gangarauli, District-Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh- 209121. ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. ------ 05/ 30.03.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned P.P for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Bishungarh P.S. Case No. 63 of 2019, registered for the offence under Sections 366-A and 302 of the Indian penal Code, read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge-VI, Hazaribag. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner happened to be the sister of one Mukesh Ravidas and the allegations are made that in the house of the petitioner, the deceased was put on fire and subsequently, she died due to burn injury in Hazaribag. According to him, a person, who is having the burn injury, it is impossible that she will travel from Kanpur to Hazaribag. He next submits that the brother of this petitioner has faced the trial and subsequently he has been convicted, however, his sentence has been suspended by the Division Bench of this court and he has been directed to be released on bail, during the pendency of the criminal appeal. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the [ 2026:JHHC:9061] -2- prayer and submits that in the dying declaration of the deceased, she has taken the name of this petitioner and further in the house of this petitioner, she was put on fire and she is also the accomplish of Mukesh Ravidas, who happened to be the brother of this petitioner. 5. Considering the allegation that the petitioner and her brother have put the deceased on fire in the house of this petitioner and subsequently, the deceased has died and further in the dying declaration, the deceased has taken the name of this petitioner and in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to provide the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. As such, her prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-30.03.2026 Amitesh/-