ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 75 of 2023 instituted under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail. 3. As per FIR, allegation is that earlier, one Arjun Mandal established physical relationship with the informant’s daughter (since deceased) on false assurance of marriage but he did not marry her and demanded Rs.5 lakhs as additional dowry. On 15.03.2023, when the informant along with her husband and son was outside of her house due to some work, petitioners in furtherance of their common intention along with others entered into the house of informant and found her daughter alone in the house, then they killed her by wrapping duppta around her neck and hanging by ceiling fan. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence at all rather they have been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity and being close relative of co-accused Arjun Mandal. It is further submitted that Arjun Mandal is the son of petitioner No.1 and the informant was adamant to solemnize marriage of Arjun Mandal with her daughter but in the meantime, due to unprecedented occurrence which occurred with her daughter, this false case has been instituted against them. The informant is aggressor party and earlier she has also filed a case against the petitioner including main accused Arjun Mandal. Petitioners undertake to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, the petitioners may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that there are direct and specific allegation against the petitioners in the offence of commission of murder of informant’s daughter(since deceased). Hence, petitioners may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case as discussed above, gravity of offence and severity of punishment and materials available on record against the petitioners showing their direct involvement in this case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer of anticipatory bail of petitioners is rejected.