( 2026:JHHC:12712 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 7187 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 7187 of 2025 1. Guddu Bhuiyan @ Narain Kumar @ Narayan Kumar, aged about 27 years, son of Rupan Bhuiyan, resident of Village- Kamaru, P.O. Manika, P.S. Manika, District- Palamu (Jharkhand) 2. Lalita Kumar @ Lalita Devi, aged about 44 years, wife of Rupan Bhuiyan, resident of Village- Bakoriya, P.O. Manika, P.S. Manika, District- Palamu (Jharkhand) … Petitioners -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Nawin Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Bandana Sinha, A.P.P. ----- 05/30.04.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Satbarwa P.S. Case No.82 of 2025, dated 11.08.2025, registered for the offence under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamu. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is the brother-in-law and petitioner no.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. He further submits that the deceased was upset and she has committed suicide. He then submits that there are general and omnibus allegations of torture against all the family members. He also submits that the I.O. has found the case under Section 108 of the B.N.S. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the allegations are there against the entire family members of torture and due to that, the deceased was remained upset. She further ( 2026:JHHC:12712 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 7187 of 2025 submits that independent witnesses at paras 20 and 21 of the case diary have stated that the entire family members were torturing the deceased and even they were passing comment as she has not conceived pregnancy. On these grounds, she submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in reply submits that the witness whose statement has been recorded in para 20 of the case diary, is not an independent witness and he is son of the informant. 6. On query made by the Court with regard to the witness statement at para 21 of the case diary, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is not knowing about that witness. 7. Considering that the witnesses at paras 20 and 21 of the case diary stated that the petitioners used to pass comment upon the deceased and pursuant to that, she was remained upset. Prima facie, it suggests that due to instigation of the family members, the deceased was compelled to take such step. 8. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and, as such, their prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected. 9. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 30th April, 2026 Ajay/