Sandeep Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12306 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2022 Thana- UCHKAGAON District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Sandeep Yadav S/O Lalchand Yadav @ Lalchand Chaudhary R/O VillageKaparpura, P.S- Uchakagaon, District- Gopalganj (bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shiv Sager Sharma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar No. 2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 27-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Uchakagaon P.S. Case No. 35 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the D.P. Act, pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M.-IX, Gopalganj.

As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along with other co-accused killed the daughter of the informant due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

Larned counsel for the petitioner submits that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12306 of 2023(2) dt.27-04-2023 2/2 The petitioner is the husband of the deceased. He submits that the petitioner had never demanded any dowry from his wife and other family members of his wife. He submits that on the alleged date of occurrence the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of the bail application. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the petitioner is also involved in the present case and the medical report supports the prosecution case. Hence, he does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case, nature of the offence and the fact that petitioner is the husband of the deceased, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T