Umesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.36023 of 2015 Arising Out of PS. Case No. -13 Year- 2015 Thana -AANTI District- GAYA ====================================================== Umesh Yadav S/o Karu Yadav R/o village - Chabura, P.S. Rafiganj, District - Aurangabad .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Anuradha Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 03-11-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case under Sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The sister-in-law of the deceased is the informant of the case. The informant alleged that after death of the husband of the deceased, the deceased was living with the informant. The petitioner is the brother-in-law of the deceased. The petitioner wanted the deceased to transfer the lands falling in her share in favour of the petitioner. The informant further alleged that the petitioner along with other three persons came and stayed at the house of the informant. There was raining at the night. The informant came out to cover cow-dung. His sister-in-law (the deceased) also followed her, but in the meantime, the petitioner and others, who had stayed at the house of the informant, stabbed

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36023 of 2015 (3) dt.03-11-2015 2/2 Lalmuni Devi and fled away. Sri Dhirendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that except the informant, there is no eye-witness of the occurrence. Even the informant did not see as to who stabbed her sister-in-law Lalmuni Devi (the deceased). The wife of the petitioner filed a complaint case against the informant, her husband and others that they killed Lalmuni Devi, but from perusal of the record, it appears that the informant is the sister-in-law (Bhabho) of the deceased and the deceased, after the death of her husband, was living in the house of the informant. The informant has very categorically stated that it was the petitioner who was pressurizing the deceased Lalmuni Devi to transfer the lands falling in her share to him and consequently thereupon the petitioner and others killed Lalmuni Devi and fled away.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in Anti P.S. Case No. 13/2015. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Dilip/- U T