Vijay Kr. Yadav @ Vijay Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45689 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -76 Year- 2014 Thana -MURLIGANJ District- MADHEPURA ====================================================== Vijay Kr. Yadav @ Vijay Yadav S/o Kailash Yadav resident of villagePokhram, P.S.- Murliganj, District- Madhepura .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Jitendra Kr. Roy No.1(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 21-04-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Murliganj P.S. Case No. 76 of 2014, registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner is husband. Anju Devi the deceased has gone to worship with one Kajal Kumari. The petitioner took his wife to Madhepura, but the wife did not return and her dead body was recovered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized 17 years ago and there is no eye witness of the occurrence. A decomposed dead body was found and the petitioner is in jail merely on suspicion because he happens to be the husband of the deceased.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45689 of 2014 (5) dt.21-04-2015 2/2 On the other hand learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned APP has submitted that Kajal Kumari and other witnesses namely Arun Yadav, Shambhu Sada and Birendra Yadav have stated that the petitioner took his wife to Madhepura. The informant has alleged that the petitioner developed love affair with Sima Kumari and that is why there was quarrelling between the husband and the wife.

Having considered the facts that it was the petitioner, who took his wife to Madhepura, but his wife did not return and her dead body was recovered, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T