Patna High CourtCR. MISC./60974/2021dismissed

Rakesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2022-10-17Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60974 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-476 Year-2019 Thana- JAYNAGAR District- Madhubani ====================================================== Rakesh Yadav Son Of Late Dukhi Yadav R/O Village- Ekdara, P.S.- Khajauli, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Masoom Alam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Renu Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-10-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defect(s) as pointed out by the office within a period of four weeks.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Jainagar P.S. Case No. 476 of 2019-CRI No. 1790 of 2019 registered under Section-304B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitioner including other accused persons is of torturing and causing death of the deceased for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering alleged against the petitioner. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60974 of 2021(3) dt.17-10-2022 2/2 petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner happens to be husband of the deceased. There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. The petitioner has been made accused due to mistake of fact.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR. The petitioner is husband of the deceased. The onus is upon the petitioner to explain the cause of death of his wife.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

However, if the petitioner surrenders in the court below and seeks regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Sudhir Singh, J) A.K.V.//- U T