Rajesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58012 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2019 Thana- CHANDRAMANDI District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.

Rajesh Yadav, Son of Ganesh Mahto @ Ganesh Yadav, R/O VillageDarhwa, P.S.- Chandramandih, District- Jamui 2.

Sunita Devi, Wife of Rajesh Yadav, R/O Village- Darhwa, P.S.- Chandramandih, District- Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anil Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 08-03-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Chandramandih P.S. Case No. 60 of 2019 registered for offences under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The first information report was registered against unknown persons. The deceased is the mother of petitioner no.1 Rajesh Yadav and mother-in-law of petitioner no.2 Sunita Devi. It has come during investigation that Manoj Yadav and Rajesh Kumar used to quarrel for the property and after

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58012 of 2021(2) dt.08-03-2022 2/3 disappearance of their mother, first information report was registered and her dead body was recovered and the police suspected the hand of the petitioners in this case. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are son and daughter-in-law of the deceased and they have not killed her and there is no direct evidence against them.

In view of the evidence which has come against petitioner no.1 Rajesh Yadav that he killed his mother for the property, he does not deserve anticipatory bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the application for anticipatory bail on behalf of petitioner no.1 Rajesh Yadav is dismissed.

So far as petitioner no.2, namely, Sunita Devi is concerned, there is no allegation against her that she is involved in committing the crime.

Considering the above, the application for anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner no.2, namely, Sunita Devi is allowed.

Accordingly, let petitioner no.2, namely, Sunita Devi, in the event of her arrest or surrender within four weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58012 of 2021(2) dt.08-03-2022 3/3 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Jamui in connection with Chandramandih P.S. Case No. 60 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (Sandeep Kumar, J) uday/- U T