Ram Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53268 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-59 Year-2021 Thana- PARASBIGHA District- Jehanabad ====================================================== 1.

Ram Kumar Yadav Son Of Ramasis Yadav R/O Village- Devchand Bigha, P.S.- Parasbigha, District- Jehanabad 2.

Setal Yadav Son Of Ram Kumar Yadav R/O Village- Devchand Bigha, P.S.- Parasbigha, District- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 04-07-2022 Vide order dated 18.02.2022, the anticipatory bail application of petitioner no.1, namely, Ram Kumar Yadav, was withdrawn as having become infructuous.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner (Setal Yadav) seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that his daughter was happily married for 10 years, but on 25.04.2021 at 10 A.M., he was informed that his daughter

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53268 of 2021(3) dt.04-07-2022 2/3 had consumed poison. It is next submitted that the informant went to the place of occurrence where the villagers disclosed that the accused persons including the petitioner had some dispute with the deceased on account of which, she drank poison, thereafter they took her to some hospital. It is next alleged that the informant still does not know that the victim is dead or alive.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from bare perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that the deceased was happily married for the last 10 years. The petitioner is the elder brother-in-law of the deceased and is separate in mess and property. It is next submitted that the petitioner does not disclose, who were the villagers, who informed the informant that it was the petitioner and other accused persons, who had dispute with the victim leading to the occurrence. It is next submitted that the petitioner does not have day to day concern with his brother Jitendra Yadav, husband of the deceased.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the anticipatory bail application.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in the nature of allegation as

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53268 of 2021(3) dt.04-07-2022 3/3 alleged, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with Parasbigha P. S. Case No.59 of 2021, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The application stands allowed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T