Satyendra Yadav @ Satyendra v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12504 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2010 Thana- RAJGIR District- Nalanda ====================================================== SATYENDRA YADAV @ SATYENDRA, S/o Late Gagan Yadav, Resident of Village - Chamardiha, P.S.- Rajgir, District - Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mrs.Kumari Sujata Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :
None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 05-03-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the State to oppose this application. Petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Rajgir P.S. Case No. 78 of 2010 registered for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He happens to be the husband of the deceased, the allegation against him in the FIR is that because the sister of the informant was ugly, she was beaten by the accused persons before a day of occurrence and thereafter by pouring kerosone oil on her she was burnt. The dead body was found in the house in the burnt condition. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is an employee in a company and because of his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12504 of 2019(2) dt.05-03-2019 2/2 employment reason he could not surrender in the case earlier even though the co-accused was arrested, faced the trial and she was acquitted.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records, this Court finds that in this case the petitioner is the husband against whom there are some direct allegation of participation in the alleged occurrence, moreover the case was lodged in the year 2010, the petitioner is moving this Court after having been declared absconder and it is almost 10 years by now. In these circumstances, this Court would not be willing to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
The application is dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) arvind/- U T