Gopal Kumar Yadav @ Gopal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.24364 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -136 Year- 2016 Thana -RAJNAGAR District- MADHUBANI ====================================================== Gopal Kumar Yadav @ Gopal Kumar Son of Shri Ramchandra Yadav, Resident of Village- Kewan, P.S.- Rajnagar, District- Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar No 13 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 07-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner is languishing in custody since 03.01.2017 in connection with Sessions Trial No. 153/17, arising out of Raj Nagar P.S. Case No. 136/16, for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 326, 307, 498-A, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, as lodged by the mother of the victim lady, is that the family members of the petitioner, who were in-laws of Sunita Devi, have poured kerosene oil for nonfulfillment of demand of dowry, which resulted in burn injury. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent, not present on the date of occurrence in his house and being the husband, he has been falsely

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24364 of 2017 (3) dt.07-07-2017 2/2 implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that the independent witnesses have also stated that the petitioner was not present on the spot and the petitioner is also not named in the First Information Report to have committed any offence. It is submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted, hence, there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence. However, learned APP for the State submits that in the case diary witnesses have stated that the petitioner was quarreling with the victim lady on telephone, hence, opposes the prayer for bail.

Be that as it may, let petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VI, Madhubani in connection with Sessions Trial No. 153/17, arising out of Raj Nagar P.S. Case No.136/16, subject to the condition that the petitioner will appear before the learned court below on each and every date during trial and failure to appear on three consecutive dates without assigning any reason will entail cancellation of his bail bonds.

(Nilu Agrawal, J) Rajesh/- U T