Patna High CourtCR. MISC./40103/2019rejected

Nagendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2019-09-13Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40103 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-249 Year-2018 Thana- ROHTAS District- Rohtas ====================================================== NAGENDRA YADAV Son of Laxman Yadav Resident of Village - Bhabhan Talab, Bhulana Tola, P.S.- Rohtas, District - Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Siddharth Harsh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bharat Bhushan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 13-09-2019 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Rohtas P.S. Case No. 249 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under sections 304B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case merely on basis of suspicion. The marriage between the petitioner and the deceased was solemnized about 9 years ago, and as such, no offence under section 304B I.P.C. is made out against this petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 01.10.2018.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40103 of 2019(4) dt.13-09-2019 2/2 Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the deceased has died in her matrimonial home and there are allegations of cruelty against the petitioner and his family members. Moreover, petitioner being the husband had the responsibility to maintain his wife with full honour and dignity, in which he failed, and as such, he does not deserve to be granted the privilege of bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T