Birendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34835 of 2015 (3) dt.23-11-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34835 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -44 Year- 2015 Thana -KHIJARSARAI District- GAYA ======================================================

1. Birendra Yadav Son of Bhuneshwar Yadav, Resident of Murarchak, P.S.- Khizersarai, District- Gaya, Bihar .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudha Chandra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 23-11-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel representing the State and learned counsel for the informant.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Khijzersarai P.S. Case No. 44 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Rinku Devi the sister of the informant was married with the petitioner and she saw the petitioner in objectionable condition with the wife of his cousin and for that the sister of the informant was assaulted by the petitioner and ultimately she was killed by strangulation.

Submission is of false implication and that there is no legal and cogent evidence against the petitioner, no one has

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34835 of 2015 (3) dt.23-11-2015 seen the petitioner committing the crime and only on suspicion the petitioner and other family members have been implicated. The wife of the petitioner committed suicide and information was given to the informant and his other family members, it may be a case under Section 306 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC and petitioner who is suffering in custody since 17.04.2015 deserves sympathetic consideration to which the learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposes by submitting that the petitioner is the husband and the witnesses have stated that the petitioner and others killed the deceased by strangulating her and the doctor has also found cause of death as shock and asphyxia as a result of strangulation.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and there is serious allegation against him which finds support from the statement of the witnesses and also from the medical evidence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T