Subodh Yadav And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.24282 of 2015 Arising out of PS.Case No. -336 Year- 2014 Thana -MADHEPURA COMPALINT CASE DistrictMADHEPURA ======================================================

1. Subodh Yadav, son of Late Satish Yadav, resident of Village-Barah Kurwa, P.S.- Kumar Khand, District-Madhepura.

2. Bhushan Yadav, son of Bijay Yadav, resident of Village- Beltari, P.S.- Janki Nagar, District- Purnea.

.... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Amirka Devi, wife of Garib Yadav, resident of Village-Barahkurwa, P.S.-Kumarkhand, District-Madhepura.

.... .... Opposite Parties.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Durgesh Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. S.D.Singh Yadav (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-07-2015 The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 336 of 2014 for the offences instituted under Sections 364, 323, 354 and 504/34 of the I.P.C. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the petitioner no. 1 came on 11.09.2013 at the house of the complainant on the pretext of giving him a job of seller on monthly payment of Rs. 13,000/- excluding Rs. 2000/- per month for fooding but thereafter it is said the son of the complainant did not return to her house. It has been further alleged that when the petitioner no. 1 Subodh

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24282 of 2015 (2) dt.13-07-2015 2/3 Yadav came at his house on 15.03.2014 then the complainant went at his house and inquired about his son but he did not satisfy her. Thereafter, when the complainant called for a Panchayati then he accepted that he had engaged the son of the complainant in a work at Punjab and he will bring him to his house from thereafter Holi. It has been further alleged in the complaint petition that when the son of the complainant did not return to her house after Holi then the complainant again went to the house of the petitioner then he abused and assaulted her by slaps and pushed her down on the ground as a result of which she became naked in that condition also the petitioner assaulted her by legs. It has been further alleged that there is land dispute between both the parties and due to which the petitioner no. 1 alongwith his mousera brother, namely, Bhushan Yadav in collusion with each other took away the son of the complainant after inducting him and her son and might have been killed by these petitioners.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have been made accused in the present case due to mistake of fact. It is further submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners.

On behalf of the State it has been submitted that the victim has not yet been recovered.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24282 of 2015 (2) dt.13-07-2015 3/3 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the same is rejected in connection with Complaint Case No. 336 of 2014, pending in the court of the learned C.J.M., Madhepura. Anyhow, if the petitioners surrender in the court below within a period of six weeks the learned court below shall consider the case of the petitioners on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

U.K./- (Sudhir Singh, J) U T