Pradeep Yadav @ Pradeep Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41142 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2019 Thana- BARH District- Patna ====================================================== PRADEEP YADAV @ PRADEEP KUMAR Son of Lakshmi Yadav Resident of Village - Dhelwan Gosain, P.S.- Barh, Distt.- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 21-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, within four weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Barh P.S. Case No. 158/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Section 304B/120B/201 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Barh, Patna.

The daughter of the informant is said to have been killed by the petitioner in association of his family members. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41142 of 2021(2) dt.21-03-2022 2/2 that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case as he is the husband of the deceased. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. As a matter of fact, the deceased has committed suicide due to misery hardship and several ailments. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that considering the nature of the allegation, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail and the learned Court below would pass order in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T