Ravindra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28569 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-2015 Thana- PHULWARIYA District- Gopalganj ====================================================== RAVINDRA YADAV S/O SURENDRA YADAV R/O VILLAGE- CHERO TOLA RAMPUR MAJIRWAKALA, P.S- PHULWARA, DISTT.- GOPALGANJ.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence under Section 304(B), 201 /34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is a case of 'Dowry Death'. The accused persons committed the murder of daughter of informant by throttling and also disposed her dead-body due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Petitioner happens to be husband of the deceased.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. During course of investigation, name of petitioner transpired. As a matter of fact,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28569 of 2024(3) dt.08-08-2024 2/2 at the relevant time, petitioner was at abroad. Learned counsel further submits that during course of trial, in respect of other coaccused persons, in Sessions Trial No. 215 of 2021, altogether 8 witnesses have been examined including the informant and all have been declared hostile by the learned trial court.

5. However, learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner happens to be husband of the deceased and was found, as suspect, in the course of investigation. Although, petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., but deceased died in an unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage at her matrimonial home.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T