Vijay Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34265 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-284 Year-2018 Thana- ATRI District- Gaya ====================================================== VIJAY YADAV Son of Ratan Yadav @ Ramratan Yadav Resident of Village - Kasiyadih, P.S.- Atri, Distt - Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. J. N. Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-11-2019 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, informant and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner, being the husband of the victim, is languishing in custody since 07.12.2018 in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The accusation is of killing the daughter of the informant, namely, Rekha Devi, after four years of marriage for non-fulfillment of dowry demand.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the victim died due to snake bite. A statement has been made in paragraph no.3 of the petition that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedent.

Learned counsel for the informant submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34265 of 2019(6) dt.20-11-2019 2/2 victim was killed after four years of marriage due to nonfulfillment of dowry demand. Learned APP for the State after going through the case diary submits that the FSL report reflects cause of death due to shock and asphyxia, as a result of smothering. Considering the thrust of accusation against the petitioner, being the husband of the victim, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, for the present. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with Atri P.S. Case No.284 of 2018, pending before the learned ACJM-XIII, Gaya, is rejected.

However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within a period of one year. Let the trial Court expedite the trial. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Ashwini/- U T