Chandradeo Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25513 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-252 Year-2021 Thana- FATEHPUR District- Gaya ====================================================== CHANDRADEO YADAV Son of Vishu Yadav @ Bishun Yadav Resident of Village - Modanbigha (meyari Tola) , P.s.- Fatehpur, Distt.- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Onkar Nath, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 11-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 252 of 2021 registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the FIR, the informant has alleged that his sister was married to the petitioner and out of the said wed lock, the couple was blessed with a son. The further allegation is that earlier he had administered poison to the said son causing his death. The informant also alleged that the petitioner had even poisoned his first wife to death and had developed illicit relationship with one of his step daughter-in-law. He lastly submits that the accused person murdered his sister and threw her dead body in a 'Aahar' and the decomposed body was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25513 of 2022(2) dt.11-08-2022 2/2 recovered after three days. Accordingly, dead body of the deceased was taken to Magadh Medical College, Gaya and the postmortem was conducted.

The petitioner is the husband of the deceased lady and nothing is on record to show that her disappearance for three days was even reported by him to anyone much less before the police station. It was only after the recovery of the decomposed body of the lady after three days that the informant herein lodged the FIR against the petitioner.

Taking into account the aforesaid facts as also that the petitioner being the husband cannot exonerate himself from the said alleged death of his wife, this Court is not inclined to grant him the privilege of bail which is accordingly rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Jagdish/- U T