Rajeev Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.14165 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -207 Year- 2014 Thana -BAHERI District- DARBHANGA ====================================================== Rajeev Kumar Yadav S/o Sri Jag Narayan Yadav Resident of Village Bihrauni, P.S. Baheri, District Darbhanga.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kamal For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madan Kumar(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 03/ 03-07-2015 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

The petitioner being the husband of the victim is languishing in custody since 18.10.2015 in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The accusation is of killing the niece of the informant after four years of the marriage for non-fulfillment of the dowry demand. It was also alleged that when the informant reached to the petitioner house he was not allowed to see the dead body as the accused wanted to dispose of the dead body but with the intervention of the police the dead body was recovered. It is submitted by learned counsel for the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14165 of 2015 (3) dt.03-07-2015 2/2 petitioner that superficial injury has been found on the face which was not found to be cause of the death of the victim as a result the viscera has been preserved. It is further submitted that there is no accusation of demand of dowry soon before the death. Considering the fact that the victim died after four years of the marriage and the thrust of accusation is against this petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in connection with Baheri P.S. Case No. 207 of 2014 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Darbhanga.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

Let the trial be expedited.

However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within a period of one year.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) DKS/- U T