Patna High CourtCR. MISC./7004/2024bail rejected

Pankaj Yadav @ Pankaj Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2024-02-17Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7004 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2023 Thana- NATHNAGAR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Pankaj Yadav @ Pankaj Kumar Yadav S/O- Late Mahendra Yadav @ Late Mahendra Prasad Yadav R/O- Village- Raghopur Tikar, P.S.- Nathnagar (MADHUSUDANPUR O.P), Dist.- Bhagalpur.

... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

The State Of Bihar, Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Davendra Kumar Pandey, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Vinod Shanker Modi, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 17-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with S.Tr. No. 397 of 2023, arising out of Nathnagar (Madhusudanpur O.P.) P.S. Case No. 14 of 2023 lodged under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. read with section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner who is son-in-law of the informant with allegation that informant's son-in-law has killed his daughter.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7004 of 2024(2) dt.17-02-2024 2/2 that the informant is not eye witness rather on hearsay basis, this F.I.R. has been lodged. He also submits that charge has been framed, prosecution witness started, but two prosecution witnesses became hostile and no cogent material has come in this case.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 22.01.2023 having clean antecedent.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the allegation of killing of wife is against the petitioner and only due to the lapse of time, section 304B of I.P.C. has not been added as eight years of marriage has taken place and this aspect may not be ground for bail.

7. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected at present.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T