Patna High CourtCR. MISC./21100/2017rejected

Bhorik Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2017-06-29Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21100 of 2017 (4) dt.29-06-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21100 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -315 Year- 2016 Thana -BIHARSHARIF District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ======================================================

1. Bhorik Yadav S/o Kishori Yadav, Resident of Village- Mohinuddinpur, Police Station- Bihar, District- Nalanda.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kishor Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Surendra Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 29-06-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Bihar P.S. case No. 315 of 2016 under Section 304B, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant, father of the deceased, alleged that his daughter was married to the petitioner about five years ago but her husband and other in-laws were torturing her. The informant further alleged that he got information that his daughter was killed and her dead body was being cremated. The informant went there and saw the dead body was almost burnt to ashes. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is, of course, husband of the deceased but there is no allegation of assault against the petitioner. The informant filed a

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21100 of 2017 (4) dt.29-06-2017 petition stating that on mere hearsay information he lodged the case. No demand of dowry was ever made. On such, Kishori Yadav, father of the petitioner, was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 16.12.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 47524 of 2016. It appears that petitioner is husband and during the course of investigation it has come that the petitioner was torturing his wife. The deceased was second wife of the petitioner. The petitioner also killed his first wife and thereafter solemnized second marriage. The second wife also met the same fate. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T