Deepak Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.15753 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -92 Year- 2016 Thana -PARWATTA District- KHAGARIA ====================================================== Deepak Yadav, S/o Narad Yadav, resident of Village - Araria, P.S. - Parbatta (Maraiya), District - Khagaria.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Ram Naresh Ray (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 10-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Parbatta P.S Case No. 92 of 2016 ( G.R. No. 889 of 2016) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ranjan Kumari, the daughter of the informant was married to the petitioner two years ago and after marriage the petitioner started demanding money and due to non-fulfillment used to assault and torture her, resulting, the daughter of the informant was living with the informant but on 22.04.2016 the petitioner came and took away his wife on motorcycle but since thereafter the informant tried to talk with her daughter but failed and then on 25.04.2016 the informant went to the in-laws house of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15753 of 2017 (3) dt.10-05-2017 2/3 her daughter but did not found her daughter then the petitioner and other co-accused started abusing her and became adamant to assault her and on inquiry, it transpires that the petitioner and others have killed the daughter of the informant and have made dead body traceless.
Submission is of false implication and that other coaccused have been allowed bail and the petitioner is suffering in custody since 13.11.2016, chargesheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of tampering with prosecution evidence. As a matter of fact, the wife of the petitioner has fled away and she is still traceless but without any legal evidence chargesheet has been submitted under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code also there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence. and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration. Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail.
In the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M., 1st Khagaria, in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case No. 92 of 2016 (G.R. No. 889 of 2016), subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15753 of 2017 (3) dt.10-05-2017 3/3 property within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.
(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T