Yaddu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2483 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-203 Year-2018 Thana- SONO District- Jamui ====================================================== Yaddu Yadav, age about 40 years (M), Son of Late Lakhan Yadav, Resident of Village- Sabejor, P.S.-Sono, District - Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Pankaj Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Gulnar Begum ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-01-2019 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.
The petitioner, being the father of the husband of the victim is languishing in custody since 03.12.2018 in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B/34 of the IPC.
The prosecution case, as per the written report of Nageshwar Yadav, dated 26.07.2018, submitted to the Station House Officer, Sono Police Station, is to the effect that the informant's daughter, Sunita Devi was married with the son of the petitioner, Vikash Yadav about five years prior to the lodging of the present case, but subsequent to the marriage, the husband of the victim, Vikash Yadav started demanding further dowry of Rs. 1 lac and due to non-fulfillment of the same, the victim was
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2483 of 2019(2) dt.22-01-2019 2/3 tortured by her husband. It is further alleged that on 26.07.2018, the informant called his son-in-law, Vikash Yadav, when it was conveyed to him that his daughter is missing. Thereafter, the informant went to the in-laws house of his daughter where he came to know that his daughter has been killed and her dead body has been disposed of. Hence, it is alleged that all the inlaws family members of the victim including the petitioner are involved in the alleged offence.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though from the FIR, it appears that the victim was married with the son of the petitioner about five years prior to the lodging of the present case, but in fact, the marriage was performed nine years prior to the death of the victim. Thrust of accusation is against the husband of the victim. The petitioner claims to be separate from the husband of the victim. The accusation against the petitioner is omnibus and general. It is further submitted that co-accused, Mukesh Yadav and Sakund Devi, who are son and son-in-law of the petitioner, have been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 26.11.2018, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 69332 of 2018. Learned APP submits that the petitioner is named in FIR. Considering the thrust of accusation against the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2483 of 2019(2) dt.22-01-2019 3/3 husband of the victim and similarly situated co-accused persons, being granted privilege of anticipatory bail, coupled with the statement made in paragraph no.3 of the petition that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedent, let the above named petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned ACJM-Ist Class, Jamui in connection with Sono P.S. Case No. 203 of 2018. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Amrendra/- U T