Vikash Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4623 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-247 Year-2019 Thana- MANSI District- Khagaria ====================================================== VIKASH YADAV S/o Jogi Yadav R/o village- Sineme Diyara, P.S.- Sahebpur, Kamal, District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anil Kumar, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 28-10-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mansi P.S. Case No. 247 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
According to the prosecution case, the petitioner caught hold the deceased and one Bhushan Yadav, coaccused, opened fire on the victim which hit the right side of stomach of the deceased for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4623 of 2020(3) dt.28-10-2021 2/2 submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. In fact, the petitioner happens to be brother-in-law of the deceased's husband and he has no concern with the alleged occurrence and also the internal affairs of the deceased and her husband. Hence, the petitioner may be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned A.P.P. for the State, vehemently, opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner that he caught hold the deceased-wife at the time of occurrence and one Bhushan Yadav, co-accused, opened fire upon her as a result of which, she died during course of treatment. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to this petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected. (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) braj/- U T