Raj Kumar Yadav @ Ram Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23362 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-68 Year-2020 Thana- TANKUPPA District- Gaya ====================================================== Raj Kumar Yadav @ Ram Kumar Yadav, Son of Rajendra Yadav, R/o VillageDarjiachak, P.S.- Tankuppa, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-08-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks from today.
Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sateyndra Narayan Singh, learned APP for the State.
The petitioner seeks regular bail, who is in custody in connection with Tankuppa P.S. case no. 68 of 2020, giving rise to S.T. No. 274 of 2021 (SJ) / 408/2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per prosecution case, it is alleged that the marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized in the year 1998 and thereafter she blessed with son and daughter, who are
2/4 at present aged about 14 and 17 years respectively. It is further alleged that on 10.08.2020, the informant received an information that his daughter has committed suicide by putting herself on Railway Track. It is further alleged that four days prior to the occurrence, the accused persons assaulted her and they were demanding Rs.1,00,000/-.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that from the F.I.R. it is admitted that the marriage was solemnized way back in the year 1998 and from their wedlock two children were born and it is highly improbable that after 20 years of the marriage demand of dowry would be made by the in-laws and husband of the deceased. It is next submitted that this is not the case of the prosecution that earlier at any point of time such demand was made and for such demand and torture any complaint was made to any authority. It is next submitted that the deceased was a woman of high temper and on account of some trifling reason she committed suicide and this fact has also been corroborated by the independent witness during the course of investigation and moreover the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions and because petitioner is the unfortunate husband of the deceased, he has been implicated in this case and he is in custody since 09.12.2020 having fair
3/4 antecedent and moreover he is ready to give undertaking that he will cooperate in the trial.
On the other hand, learned APP for the State opposes the bail application and submits that petitioner is the husband of the deceased and he was under obligation to take care of his wife well being.
Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that marriage was solemnized way back in the year 1998 and prior to the occurrence there was no any complaint and the petitioner is in custody since 09.12.2020 having fair antecedent, let the petitioner, named above, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Gaya in connection with Tankuppa P.S. case no. 68 of 2020, giving rise to S.T. No. 274 of 2021 (SJ) / 408/2022, subject to the condition that one of the bailors will be the close relatives of the petitioner with further conditions which are as follows:- (i) The petitioner will cooperate in conclusion of the trial.
(ii) He will remain present on each and every date of
4/4 trial till disposal of the case.
(iii) He will not try to tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witnesses to delay the disposal of trial. (iv) In the event of default of two consecutive dates without any cogent reason, his bail bonds will liable to be cancelled.
(Harish Kumar, J) uday/- U T