Dilip Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41945 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2003 Thana- JAGDISHPUR DistrictBhagalpur ====================================================== 1.

DILIP YADAV, aged about 40 years, male, Son of Late Kishan Yadav Resident of Punak Mohanpur, P.S.- Jagdishpur, District - Bhagalpur. 2.

Umesh Yadav aged about 45 years, male, Son of Late Kishan Yadav Resident of Punak Mohanpur, P.S.- Jagdishpur, District - Bhagalpur. 3.

Phudi Yadav, aged about 43 years, Son of Late Kishan Yadav Resident of Punak Mohanpur, P.S.- Jagdishpur, District - Bhagalpur. 4.

Most. Phulia Devi @ Fudia Devi, aged abut 90 years, female, Wife of Late Kishan Yadav Resident of Punak Mohanpur, P.S.- Jagdishpur, District - Bhagalpur.

5.

Maya Devi, aged about 36 years, female, Wife of Umesh Yadav Resident of Punak Mohanpur, P.S.- Jagdishpur, District - Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioners :

Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate.

Mr. Pravin Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party:

Mrs. Gulmar Begum, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 10-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 498(A0, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered in connection with jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 27 of 2003.

3. At the very outset, learned APP submits that the F.I.R. has been filed as far back as in the year 2003, but the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41945 of 2019(2) dt.10-07-2019 2/2 petitioners have approached this Court in the year 2019 and there does not appear to be any immediate apprehension of arrest of the petitioners.

4. Considering that the petitioners have not shown any immediate apprehension of arrest and the anticipatory bail petition has been filed about 16 years after filing of the F.I.R., this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar//- U T