Upendra Kumar @ Upendra Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36722 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-206 Year-2020 Thana- SHERGHATI District- Gaya ====================================================== UPENDRA KUMAR @ UPENDRA KUMAR YADAV Son of Luxman yadav Resident of Village - Gaighat Tola Harin Chatwa, P.S.- Hanterganj, Distt.- Chatra (Jharkhand).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Abhay Kumar No.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 02-03-2021 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks bail in Sherghati (Dobhi) P.S. case No. 206 of 2020 registered u/s 306 of the IPC. The informant, mother of the deceased, alleged that Upendra Kumar Yadav, the petitioner, owner of Kirana shop, used to stalk and pass loose remarks against her daughter and he was compelling her to solemnize marriage with him and on account of such the daughter of informant set her ablaze. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the allegations are false and concocted. There is no tangible evidence that petitioner was ever stalking or harassing the daughter of informant. The petitioner is married and he got three children. None of the witnesses has supported the prosecution

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36722 of 2020(3) dt.02-03-2021 2/2 case but it appears from perusal of the case diary that the deceased herself disclosed while going to hospital for treatment and in the hospital that it was the petitioner who was stalking and harassing her. The petitioner was pressurizing her for solemnizing marriage. The witnesses have reiterated the facts that the victim made statement in their presence. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail, at this stage. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

The trial court is directed to hold the trial on day to day basis and conclude the same within six months from the date of receipt of this order.

If the trial is not concluded within six months, the petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T