Rajendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 17202 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -13 Year- 1996 Thana -BELHAR District- BANKA ====================================================== Rajendra Yadav S/o Badri Yadav Resident of Village - Bela, Police Station - Belhar, District - Banka.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Mukherjee For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar - 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3.

07-07-2017 Heard Sri Ajay Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The petitioner, husband of the deceased, has approached this Court with a prayer to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail in Belhar P.S. Case No. 13 of 1996 registered for offence under Sections 302, 304(B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is true that petitioner was husband of the deceased and named in the F.I.R., but after investigation, police found the case untrue and thereafter, in the year 1996 itself, final report was submitted and petitioner was exonerated. He further submits that fact has come in the case diary that informant side had participated in the cremation

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17202 of 2017 (3) dt.07-07-2017 2/2 and thereafter, after eight days, the present F.I.R. was lodged. He submits that once the petitioner was exonerated by the police and final report was submitted, it is at least a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

However, on perusal of the material on record, particularly; Annexure - 3 to the petition i.e. an order, whereby, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate differing with the police report, had taken cognizance of the offence on prima facie accusation, which was made in the F.I.R. itself regarding demand of dowry & torture and directed for issuance of warrant of arrest. Though, order of cognizance was passed in the year 2014, the petitioner has approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in the month of April, 2017.

Considering the fact that in this case, learned Magistrate has already passed order of cognizance in the year 2014 and warrant of arrest was directed to be issued, there is no reason to entertain the prayer for anticipatory bail. Dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T