Sunil Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37449 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-222 Year-2019 Thana- RAFIGANJ District- Aurangabad ====================================================== SUNIL KUMAR YADAV S/o Pravesh Yadav Resident of Village-Kiya Khop, P.S-Rafiganj, District- Aurangabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Yugal Kishore For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 02-02-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Rafiganj P.S. Case No. 222 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, the marriage of informant's daughter was solemnized with this petitioner in May, 2019. After marriage, this petitioner and his family members started demanding additional dowry from the daughter of informant and also subjected her to torture and harassment. On 17.08.2019 the informant received information from the villagers that petitioner and his family members burnt his daughter to death. On receiving such information, the informant went at the hospital and saw the burnt dead body of his

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37449 of 2020(2) dt.02-02-2021 2/2 daughter.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is husband of the deceased and no demand of dowry was ever made. The deceased sustained burn injuries in course of cooking meal and soon she was rushed to the hospital, but unfortunately, during course of treatment she died. Petitioner is in custody since 11.02.2020 having no criminal antecedent. Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that petitioner is husband of the deceased and the deceased died within three months of her marriage at her sasural by burn injuries.

Considering the fact that petitioner is husband of the deceased and there is direct allegation of demand of dowry and torture, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T