Devashish Yadav @ Lorik Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17823 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2021 Thana- PIPRA District- Patna ====================================================== SANJU DEVI W/o Devashish Yadav Resident of Village- Parthu, P.S.- Pipra, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 30078 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2021 Thana- PIPRA District- Patna ====================================================== Devashish Yadav @ Lorik Yadav S/O Late Rambrat Yadav R/O VillageParthu, P.S.- Pipra, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 17823 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Bal Mukund Prasad Sinha, A.P.P.
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 30078 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 26-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today. Petitioners seek bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 120(B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2/4 According to prosecution case, the petitioner along with accused persons are said to be tortured the daughter of the informant on non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and subsequently they done to death over non-fulfillment of their demand.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have clean antecedent and they has falsely been implicated in the present case only on the basis of suspicion. He further submits that there is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence and only on the basis of suspicion, the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present. He further submits that in fact the petitioner no.1, namely, Sanju Devi who is the mother-in-law of the deceased and petitioner no.2, namely, Devashish Yadav @ Lorik Yadav who is father-in-law of the deceased and husband of the deceased is in custody since 18.09.2021. He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R. that there is general and omnibus allegation against these petitioners and the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against these petitioners. The petitioner no.1, namely Sanju Devi is in custody since 13.09.2021 and petitioner no.2, namely, Devashish Yadav @ Lorik Yadav is in custody since 14.07.2021.
3/4 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioners, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 48 of 2021, subject to the following conditions:-
1. Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
2. If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
3. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent,
4/4 the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) mdrashid/- U T