Sahdev Yadav And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 38170 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -16 Year- 2016 Thana -GHOSWARI District- PATNA ======================================================
1. Sahdev Yadav, son of late Ram Charan Yadav, Resident of village Gosai Gaon Garhu Asthan, P.S. Goshwari, District - Patna.
2. Gorki Devi D/o Sahdev Yadav, Wife of Mukesh Yadav, Resident of village Gosai Gaon Garbhu Asthan P.S. Goshwari District Patna at present resident of Barbigha, P.S. Shaikhpura, District - Shekhpura. .... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajballabh Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.
16-09-2016 Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Rajballabh Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
Two petitioners, who are father-in-law and sister of husband of the deceased respectively, have approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in Goshwari P.S. Case No. 16 of 2016 registered for offence under Sections 304(B), 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
It was submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that petitioners have falsely been implicated. According to learned counsel for petitioners, the deceased died due to ailment and after the death, the information was given to the parents of the deceased and they also participated in cremation. Even thereafter, false
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38170 of 2016 (2) dt.16-09-2016 2/2 F.I.R. was lodged, whereas, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposing the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail submits that during investigation, number of witnesses have supported the prosecution case, which is evident from the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge itself.
In view of nature of accusation as well as the fact that marriage was solemnized only in the year 2014, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T