( 2026:JHHC:12579 ) -1- A.B.A. No. 7536 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 7536 of 2025 1. Babli Kumar Sah @ Ram Prakash Sah, aged about 33 years, son of Sita Ram Sah, resident of Village- Bikramshila Colony, Tilkamanjhi, P.O. Tilkamanjhi, P.S. Tilkamanjhi, District- Bhagalpur, Bihar 2. Komal Kumari, aged about 29 years, daughter of Binod Prasad Sah, resident of Village- Pakki Saray, Ghogha, P.O. Parmanandpur, P.S. Khawas, District- Bhagalpur, Bihar … Petitioners -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mukesh Mandal @ Munna Mandal, son of Jamun Mandal, resident of Village- Tilkamanjhi, Hathiya Road, P.O. & P.S. Tilkamanjhi, District- Bhagalpur, Bihar … Opposite Parties ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. S.K. Vishwakarma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, A.P.P. ----- 03/29.04.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Hansdiha P.S. Case No.57 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, pending in the Court of the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Dumka. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have nothing to do with the death of the deceased and they are not family members. He further submits that the allegations of torture are there against in-laws of the deceased and in view of that, anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that these petitioners have gone to the house of the deceased and they have tried to take away her secretly and that has come in para 16 of the case diary. He next submits that in para 33 of the case diary, it has also come ( 2026:JHHC:12579 ) -2- A.B.A. No. 7536 of 2025 that the petitioners have gone to the house of the deceased and tried to take away the deceased and on that day the altercation took place and they used to physically and mentally torture the deceased and in view of that, she has committed suicide. 5. In view of the above and looking to the contents in para 16 and 33 of the case diary, it transpires that the petitioners are also conspirators and pursuant to their instigation, the deceased has taken such step. If the petitioners are not family members of the in-laws of the deceased, they have got no business to try to take away the deceased. The petitioners are also not relative of the deceased. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 29th April, 2026 Ajay/