Pankaj Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37782 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-114 Year-2016 Thana- CHANAN District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== PANKAJ YADAV Son of Sri Kameswar Yadav @ Kamo Yadav Resident of Village - Lakhochak, P.S. - Channan, District - Lakhisarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dharmendra Kumar Raju For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bharat Bhushan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 18-01-2023 Let the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Channan P.S. Case No. 114 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 201 and 34 of the IPC. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that petitioner and others concertedly committed the murder of informant's daughter for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It is further alleged that dead body of the deceased was thrown in well.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 17.02.2022 and bears criminal antecedent of one case. He further submits that petitioner is quite innocent and falsely implicated in the case as he is husband of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37782 of 2022(3) dt.18-01-2023 2/2 deceased. He further submits that the petitioner and deceased solemnized love marriage so there is no question of demand of dowry as marriage took place out of love and affection. The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner submitting that petitioner is husband of the deceased and there is an allegation of demand of dowry, torturing and assaulting against the petitioner and finally informant's daughter has been killed and postmortem report also quiet evident in this regard and dead body of deceased was thrown in well. He further submits that restatement of informant also supports the prosecution story.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner coupled with postmortem report as well as material available on record, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order to the court concerned. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, petitioner may renew prayer of bail. (Alok Kumar Pandey, J) vashudha/- U T