Ajay Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47680 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-166 Year-2020 Thana- KHAIRA District- Jamui ====================================================== Ajay Yadav S/O Vashudev Yadav R/O Village-Kewal Fariyata, P.S- Khaira, District-Jamui, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ankit Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 07-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State through video conferencing. The petitioner seeks bail in Khaira P.S. Case No. 166 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable under Section 304(B), 201, 120(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Khaira P.S. Case No. 166 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B), 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution case, this petitioner along with other accused persons committed murder of the daughter of informant (deceased) and burnt her dead body on the bank of river due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Petitioner is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47680 of 2021(3) dt.07-01-2022 2/2 husband of the deceased.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. No such occurrence has ever taken place and there was no demand of dowry by the petitioner. In fact, at the relevant time, petitioner was no present at the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and deceased about 13 years ago. Out of said wedlock, one male and one female child were born, therefore, no case under Section 304B of IPC is made out. Petitioner is in custody since 16.03.2021 having no criminal antecedent.

Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and there is specific and direct allegation of committing murder due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation and the fact that petitioner is husband of the deceased and deceased died in unnatural circumstance at her matrimonial home, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T