Narayan Kumar @ Narayan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44377 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2013 Thana- JHAJHA District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.
Narayan Kumar @ Narayan Yadav S/o Bhuto Yadav @ Vindeshwari Yadav Resident of Village-Jamu Kharaiya, P.S-Jhajha, District-Jamui 2.
Bhuto Yadav @ Vindeshwari Yadav S/o Sukho Yadav Resident of VillageJamu Kharaiya, P.S-Jhajha, District-Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 16-07-2025 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Jhajha P.S. Case No. 119 of 2013 for the offence under sections 302, 201, 34 and 120(B) of the I.P.C. lodged on 11.06.2013 by the informant, Narayan Yadav.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that his uncle solemnized marriage twenty years ago but the wife went alongwith other person and tied nuptial knots with him. The allegation is that as the deceased had illicit relationship with one Puniya Devi, her family was disliking the said relationship which resulted into the alleged killling of Mahendra Yadav and the headless deadbody was found near the river. This
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44377 of 2025(2) dt.16-07-2025 2/2 led to the FIR.
4. Though learned counsel for the petitioner tried to prevail upon this Court to show the innocence submitting that earlier, final form was submitted against the petitioners but later, in the year 2018, cognizance was taken, learned APP has pointed out that not only there has been killing and a headless body of the deceased was found, the fact remains that even after the cognizance taken in the matter in the year 2018, after a long period, the anticipatory bail has been filed.
5. In that background, no relief can be granted.
6. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U