JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present anticipatory bail application under sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for the offences registered under Sections 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hazaribag, in connection with the Charhi P.S. Case No. 32 of 2024. 3. The prosecution case is based on the written report submitted by the informant, Prabhu Dayal Manjhi, the father of the deceased, Malti Hansda. According to the informant, his daughter was married to the petitioner, Mannu Tudu, in the year 2013. Despite the marriage subsisting, Mannu Tudu allegedly solemnized a second marriage with one Reena Hembrom. It is further alleged that both the petitioner and Reena Hembrom subjected the deceased to regular physical abuse and harassment over demands for dowry. On 28.04.2024, at around 12:30 PM, the informant received information about his daughter’s death. Upon reaching her matrimonial home, he found the door and windows open, with a table still positioned under her feet and a visible wound on her hand, suggesting suspicious circumstances surrounding the death. Due to being engaged in the last rites, the informant lodged a written complaint with the police on 01.05.2024. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the no offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. He further submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and the petitioner was not even present in the village at the time of occurrence. He further submitted that the petitioner has been framed in this case merely on the basis of suspicion. He further submitted that the FIR has been lodged after three days of the occurrence without any valid explanation. He lastly submitted that the petitioner is having no criminal antecedents against him and he is co-operating with the investigation. Thus, he prayed that the instant anticipatory bail application should be allowed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. He submitted that petitioner is named in the FIR and charge against the petitioner is grievous in nature. He further submitted that informant in his restatement has fully supported the case of the prosecution (Paragraph 10 of the Case Diary). 6. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. He submitted that petitioner is named in the FIR and charge against the petitioner is grievous in nature. He further submitted that informant in his restatement has fully supported the case of the prosecution (Paragraph 10 of the Case Diary). 6. Admittedly the deceased died an unnatural death. The cause of death prima-facie is asphyxia as a result of hanging. Thus, it can be said that the deceased has committed suicide. There is no other injury on the person of the deceased. 7. From the case-diary, I find that the petitioner had married for the second time during the subsistence of the marriage with the deceased. One of the witnesses Ramkishor Murmu stated that there is no dispute between them but she was demanding a separate residence and the petitioner stated that once he arranges some money he can construct the same. He also stated that the deceased used to often leave the house. He stated that on the date of occurrence he was sitting alongwith this petitioner when the news of death of the deceased came to him. In paragraph no. 30 Bitka Manjhi stated that the villager informed the petitioner about the death of the deceased. Similar is the statement of Md. Ashif and Bobi Karim and their statement is recorded in paragraph no. 31. 8. Considering the aforesaid statement, prima-facie there is no material to suggest abetment. Thus, this Court finds it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to this petitioner. 9. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands allowed . Similar is the statement of Md. Ashif and Bobi Karim and their statement is recorded in paragraph no. 31. 8. Considering the aforesaid statement, prima-facie there is no material to suggest abetment. Thus, this Court finds it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to this petitioner. 9. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands allowed . The petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the learned court below within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on the event of his surrender or arrest, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hazaribag, in connection with Charhi P.S. Case No. 32 of 2024, subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be a close relative of the petitioner and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his name or in the name of his ancestors in which he is having share and to that effect, he has to file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating his share in the property.