[2026:JHHC:12554] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2103 of 2026 1. Sangita Kumari, aged about 26 years W/O- Late Kundan Kumar Singh, resident of Village & P.O. Dandai, P.S. Dandai, District Garhwa (Jharkhand). 2. Sabita Kumari, aged about 19 years D/O- Lalbihari Singh. 3. Manmati Devi @ Manmuni Devi, aged about 57 years W/O- Lalbihari Singh. 4. Lalbihari Singh, aged about 58 years S/O- Late Dharmedev Singh. 5. Surya Narayan Singh @ Suraj Narayan Singh, aged about 28 years S/O- Lalbihari Singh 6. Harinarayan Singh, aged about 19 years S/O- Lalbihari Singh. 7. Naushant Kumar Singh @ Nishant Singh aged about 18 years S/O- Lalbihari Singh. all are Resident of Village & P.O. Balekhand, P.S. Dandai, District Garhwa (Jharkhand). ..... … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand. ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Md. Sajid Yunus, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P. ------ 03/ 29.04.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Dandai P.S. Case No. 05 of 2026, registered for the offence under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Garhwa. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the husband of petitioner No. 1 has committed suicide and allegations are made against the entire family members of instigating the deceased [2026:JHHC:12554] -2- to commit suicide. He next submits that even in the post-mortem report also, the cause of death is to be shown as asphyxia, as a result of hanging and no ante-mortem injury has found. 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 the death of the deceased has occurred in his in-laws house and when the informant has received information about the said occurrence, he rushed to the in-laws place of his deceased son, accompanying with 10-12 persons and then he saw that the dead body of the deceased was lying on a cot and all the family members have already been absconded and they were not present at the spot. On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may not be granted to the petitioners. 5. In the FIR, it has been alleged that when the information has been received by the informant, who is the father of the deceased, he rushed to the house of his daughter-in-law along with 10 to 12 persons, where he has not found any male member and dead body of the deceased was lying on a cot. Further the witnesses in paras-5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the case diary have supported the prosecution case and that has come in the order of the learned Sessions Judge and further other witnesses have also supported the prosecution case and that has come in paras-16 and 17 of the case diary, and further the death of the deceased has occurred in his in-laws house. 6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, above named. As such, their prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-29.04.2026 Amitesh/-