Arbind Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15062 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-341 Year-2014 Thana- JAGDISHPUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Arbind Yadav S/o Ganouri Yadav R/o village- Naya Tola Baijani, P.S.- Jagdishpur, District- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Indeshwari Prasad Mandal, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 01-06-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State, through video conferencing.

The petitioner has filed the instant application for grant of regular bail in connection with Jagdishpur P.S. Case no. 341 of 2014 registered under sections 304B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As per allegation in the F.I.R., the daughter of the informant was married to the petitioner around the year 2009. It is stated that six months after the marriage the petitioner started making demand of Rs. 1 lac in cash by way of dowry and started to beat up and torture the informant's daughter. After one of the beatings, she was not given proper treatment. It is stated by the informant that she received information about her daughter not being well and on her son going to her daughter's

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15062 of 2020(3) dt.01-06-2020 2/2 place it transpired that as a result of beating she had become unconscious. In an unconscious state she was taken for treatment to the hospital at Bhagalpur where the doctor on seeing her declared that she had died a few hours back. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations as levelled in the F.I.R. are false and concocted and no injury was inflicted on the daughter of the informant. It is submitted that co-accused Ganauri Yadav and Niranjan Yadav have been enlarged on bail by order dated 26.6.2015 (Annexure2) passed in Cr. Misc. No.7965 of 2015. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 15.11.2019. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the petitioner who is the husband of the deceased was taken into custody more than 5 years after registration of the F.I.R., he is named in the F.I.R. and there is direct allegation against him. As such the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and his application for bail is rejected.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash/- U T