Taleshwar Yadav @ Mural Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12161 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-160 Year-2020 Thana- KATORIYA District- Banka ====================================================== TALESHWAR YADAV @ MURAL YADAV Son of Bateshwar Yadav @ Battan Yadav Resident of Village - Sejua, P.S.- Katoriya, District - Banka ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Brij Nandad Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bisheshwar Ram, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-06-2021 This matter is taken up for consideration through Video Conferencing under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Katoria P.S. Case No. 160 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, informant's daughter Pinki Kumari was married with this petitioner four year prior to this occurrence. It is further alleged that after some time, all the FIR named accused persons including this petitioner started demanding dowry and subjected her to torture and committed murder of daughter of the informant due to non-fulfillment of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12161 of 2021(2) dt.25-06-2021 2/2 the same. The daughter of deceased aged about 3 years Nisha Bharti also stated before the police that her father has killed her mother by pressing her neck.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner happens to be the husband of deceased. There is no allegation of any specific overt act against this petitioner rather allegation is general and omnibus. Petitioner is in custody since 23.09.2020 having no criminal antecedent, as stated in para 3 of the petition.

Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that petitioner happens to be the husband of deceased and there is specific and direct allegation and the deceased died at her matrimonial home within seven year of her marriage in other than normal circumstance. Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T