Patna High CourtCR. MISC./41388/2018dismissed

Mantu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2018-07-17Mr. Justice Sanjay Priya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41388 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -224 Year- 2017 Thana -SIRDALA District- NAWADA ======================================================

1. Mantu Yadav S/o Late Chando Yadav, R/o Vill.- Bardaha, P.S.- Sirdala, District- Nawada.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Nayan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Narendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 17-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Sirdala P.S. Case No. 224/2017, instituted for the offence under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

In the written report, it is alleged that the daughter of the complainant was married with the petitioner. All the accused persons have burnt her daughter on 29.05.2017 after pouring kerosene oil. The informant went to the matrimonial house of her daughter and found her in burnt condition. She brought her to government hospital where she disclosed that all the accused persons, including this petitioner, had entered into her room and assaulted her because money was not paid. Thereafter her husband brought the container of the kerosene oil and poured the same over

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41388 of 2018 (2) dt.17-07-2018 2/2 her and when daughter of informant tried to flee away, the other accused persons caught hold her and this petitioner lit the fire in the Saree of the daughter of the informant and she died during course of treatment on account of burn injury. The doctor has found 57% burn injury.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is delay in lodging of the complaint. It has further been submitted that a compromise petition has been filed between the parties on 15.05.2018.

There is specific allegation against this petitioner as stated above.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner is rejected.

The petitioner may surrender before the court below and seek regular bail, which shall be considered by the court below in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

(Sanjay Priya, J.) Rakhi U T