Amar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45668 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-174 Year-2018 Thana- SALAKHUA District- Saharsa ====================================================== Amar Yadav Son of Late Brahmdeo Yadav @ Domi Yadav, Resident of Village-Kajhi, P.S.-Salakhua, District-Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Yogendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Choubey Jawahar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 25-07-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Salakhua P.S. Case No.174 of 2018 registered under Sections 498(A), 364, 365 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Later on, sections 304(B), 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code were added. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is of course the husband of the daughter of informant but the daughter of informant became traceless and the information to this effect was given to the informant. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured his wife. It is further submitted that the other accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail but from perusal of the F.I.R. itself, it appears that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner subjected his wife to all sorts of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45668 of 2019(2) dt.25-07-2019 2/2 torture and the wife of the petitioner is still traceless. The police recovered some pieces of bangles wire and bones on the basis of which the dead body was said to have been identified but the Forensic Science Laboratory could not determine the age and sex of the decomposed body.

Having considered the facts aforesaid and the fact that the petitioner is the husband of the daughter of informant and the wife of the petitioner is still traceless, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Harish/- U T