Akhilesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21135 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -12 Year- 2014 Thana -DUMARIA District- GAYA ====================================================== Akhilesh Yadav, Son of Guni Yadav, Resident of Village - Chandaria Tola, Ketadih, P.S. - Dumariya, District - Gaya.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S. Jamil Akhtar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. S.D.Singh Yadav (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is in custody in connection with Dumariya P.S. Case No.12 of 2014 registered under Sections 304B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Sherghati, District- Gaya. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the informant Shri Yadav lodged an F.I.R. on 19.3.2014 stating, inter alia, therein that his daughter Pago Devi was married to the petitioner Akilesh Yadav in the year 2012. On 18.3.2014 at about 6.00 P.M., he got confidential information that the members of her Sasural had cremated her dead body after killing her. Thereafter, the informant along with his co-villagers went to the Sasural of his daughter and there he came to know from the villagers that the accused persons named in the F.I.R., including the petitioner, had killed his daughter and cremated her dead body. It is further said that earlier also her Sasural people had abused and assaulted her on the pretext of doing

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21135 of 2015 (2) dt.13-07-2015 2/2 work.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 12.5.2014 and charge sheet has been submitted in the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The application for bail is rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial.

(Sudhir Singh, J) PNM U T