Awadhesh Yadav And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.7203 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -147 Year- 2014 Thana -RAFIGANJ District- AURANGABAD ======================================================

1. Awadhesh Yadav, S/o Late Bhagwat Yadav.

2. Guddu Kumar, S/o Mithlesh Yadav. Both residents of Village Sihuli Khaira, P.S. Rafiganj, District Aurangabad (Bihar). .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioners : Mr. Anil Kr Singh No. 6,Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 13-04-2015 Heard both sides. The petitioners seek bail in Rafiganj P.S. Case No. 147 of 2014 registered under Section 302 and other Sections of the I. P.C.

The brother of the deceased made allegation that his sister Aruna Devi and her two daughters were done to death. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 is the nephew and petitioner no. 2 is the step-son of Mithilesh Yadav. During the course of investigation, all the witnesses have stated that Mithilesh Yadav was quarrelling with his wife due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It appears from perusal of the record that after death of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7203 of 2015 (3) dt.13-04-2015 2 / 2 first wife, Mithilesh Yadav solemnized marriage with Aruna Devi in the year 2009. Aruna Devi got two daughters, namely, Anshu Kumari aged about four years and Priti Kumari aged about two years. The informant alleged that the petitioner alongwith other accused persons killed his sister and her two minor children. The dead body of Aruna Devi was found in a river and dead bodies of two minor children could not be traced out. Mithilesh Yadav and his family member not only alleged to have killed Aruna Devi and her two minor children but dead bodies were also thrown.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected in Rafiganj P.S. Case No. 147 of 2014, pending in the court of the learned C.J.M., Aurangabad. The Court in seisin of the case is directed to commit the case to the court of Sessions forthwith and the trial court shall make all efforts to conclude the trial within one year from the date of framing charge. If the trial is not concluded within the same period, the petitioners may renew the prayer for bail firstly in the trial court.

U.K./- (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) U T