Arvind Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45476 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-223 Year-2023 Thana- VISHNUPAD District- Gaya ====================================================== Arvind Yadav Son of Sukhu Yadav Resident of village - Maranpur Akshayabat, P.S.- Vishnupad, District - Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prithivi Raj Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Nirmala Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 25-10-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and perused the case diary.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in Vishnupad Mandir P.S. Case No. 223 of 2023, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 304B & 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, daughter of the informant was done to death at her matrimonial house.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. The petitioner is husband of the victim and he has been implicated in this case only for misunderstanding and to make the pressure to extort money. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is no specific allegation attributed against the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45476 of 2024(5) dt.25-10-2024 2/2 petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 27.08.2023 and has got no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is submitted that from perusal of the FIR, it appears that the petitioner along with other co-accused person tortured and harassed the daughter of the informant for no fulfilling the dowry demand. From perusal of the postmortem report, it transpires that cause of death of deceased is due to suffocation. It is further submitted that there is specific allegation attributed against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of regular bail

6. Considering the nature of accusation against the petitioner and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial expeditiously. However, if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production, the petitioner will have liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the Court below.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T