Dinesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1369 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-250 Year-2019 Thana- BENIPATTI District- Madhubani ====================================================== DINESH YADAV Son of Late Jagdeep Yadav Resident of Village-Meghban Yadav Tole, P.S.-Benipatti, District-Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Gagan Deo Yadav For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-01-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner, who is in custody seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 328, 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Informant has alleged in his written complaint that his daughter Manju Devi was married to brother of petitioner Mohan Yadav in 2007 and from said wedlock three children were born, however, it is further alleged that she was tortured in her matrimonial home by her in laws including petitioner. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He is brother-in-law of deceased and is not concern with the affairs of the deceased and his brother. It has been further submitted that due to quarrel between the husband and wife she consumed

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1369 of 2020(2) dt.20-01-2020 2/2 poison and died. Charge sheet has been submitted under Section 306 of I.P.C. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 04.09.2019.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner named above be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned court below, in connection with Benipatti P.S. Case No. 250 of 2019 subject to the conditions that:-

(1) Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned.

(2) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and his absence on two consecutive dates without proper and sufficient reason the trial court will be at liberty to cancel his bail bond.

(3) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. (S. Kumar, J) veena/- U T