Ranjit Yadav @ Ranjeet Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56608 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-401 Year-2023 Thana- RAFIGANJ District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Ranjit Yadav @ Ranjeet Yadav Son of Rajendra Yadav Resident of Kapur Bigha, P.S.- Rafiganj, District- Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate :

Mr.Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 20-09-2024 1.

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

2.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Rafiganj PS case no. 401 of 2023 instituted for the offences punishable under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.

The prosecution case, as per the First Informant Report, is that on 05.09.2023, at about 10 AM, the informant received a phone call from son-in-law and his son-in-law told the informant to give Rs. 5,00,000/- as dowry, failing which he would face dire consequences. After that, the daughter of the informant made a phone call to the informant at about 11 AM, and told him that the accused persons have administered her poison and at 7 PM, the son-in-law of the informant informed him that his daughter is admitted in Magadh Medical Hospital,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56608 of 2024(3) dt.20-09-2024 2/3 Gaya. When the informant reached the hospital, he found his daughter dead.

4.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case with ulterior motive. He further submits that the deceased was a short-tampered lady and she has committed suicide after hot altercation with her husband i.e. petitioner herein. He further submits that the deceased was living happy married life with the petitioner having two kids. The petitioner is said to be in custody since 18.05.2024.

5.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that within four years of the marriage, the deceased was killed by the petitioner and her in-laws for demand of dowry. 6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials on record including the impugned order.

7.

Within four years of the marriage, the informant's daughter died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home. The nature of death is not important whether it is natural, suicidal or accidental but the fact of the matter is that deceased died an unnatural death within four years of her marriage. There is a

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56608 of 2024(3) dt.20-09-2024 3/3 presumption against the accused persons under Section 113(A) and 113(B) of the Evidence Act. The offence is serious in nature and the punishment thereof, is also serious.

8.

Accordingly, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

9.

This application is accordingly, dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) rinkee/- U T