Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17299 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2017 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== MUKESH KUMAR YADAV, S/o Fuleshwar Yadav, Resident of VillageMurliganj Rahika Tola, Ward No.13, P.S.-Murliganj, District-Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gopal Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satya Nand Shukla ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 27-03-2019 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner, being the husband of the victim, is languishing in custody since 20.04.2017 in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B) and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case as per the written report of Dharmendra Yadav submitted to the S.H.O., Murliganj P.S. is to the effect that the informant's daughter namely, Singarmain Devi was married with the petitioner in the year 2011. Subsequently, they were blessed with two sons and thereafter

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17299 of 2019(2) dt.27-03-2019 2/3 further dowry demand of Rs.50,000/- and a Motorcycle was made. It is further alleged that due to non-fulfillment of further dowry demand, all the in-laws family members including the petitioner, killed the daughter of the informant by drowning her into water.

It is submitted by learned counsel from the petitioner that admittedly the informant is not the eye witness to the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that during trial the informant did not support the prosecution case. A statement has been made in paragraph no.3 of the petition that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedent.

Learned APP for the State submits that the thrust of accusation is against the petitioner.

Considering the fact that the thrust of accusation is against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present, in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No.115 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned F.T.C.-II, Madhepura.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in the aforementioned case, is rejected.

However, it is expected from the learned Court below to expedite the trial and if the trial is not concluded within a

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17299 of 2019(2) dt.27-03-2019 3/3 period of six months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Deepak/- U T