Manoj Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17559 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -67 Year- 2014 Thana -LAUKARIA DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ====================================================== MANOJ YADAV SON OF BHARAT YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE -SIDHAW, POLICE STATION - LAUKARIYA, DISTRICT - WEST CHAMPARAN.

.... .... PETITIONER/S

VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... OPPOSITE PARTY/S ====================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Milind Kumar Mishra, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sangita Sharma(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 24-06-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Deceased was done to death at her Sasural and in the aforesaid background it has been disclosed she was married with petitioner about five years ago and had begotten two children. It has also been disclosed that since after marriage there was insistence over dowry inform of Hero Hondo motorcycle as well as cash appertaining to Rs.15,000/-.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon para-13 of the case diary which contains statement of brother of deceased and submitted that from perusal of the same it is apparent that on 19.07.2014 petitioner had gone to his place and fairly disclosed that he had assaulted his wife as she failed to cook food. Furthermore, while Bansi along with the petitioner was in a

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17559 of 2015 (3) dt.24-06-2015 way, received call disclosing death of deceased by means of burning and on account thereof, it has been submitted that even in worst case it happens to be a case of suicide and for that petitioner has sufficiently been punished so, prayed for bail. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer.

Gone through the case diary more particularly para13 whereupon reliance has been placed. After going through the whole narration, the statement of the brother of victim did not justify the submission made on behalf of petitioner because of the fact that they have proceeded to the place of occurrence where dead body was not at all found. Furthermore, para-12 is the place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer had gone inside the house and had not found any sign of burning. Therefore, death by means of burn is not at all found properly surfaced. Furthermore, the improbability of the case is also apparent from the conduct that at an earlier occasion the call was received by the petitioner who had said that some body is coming from his village and subsequently thereof, call was made over mobile phone of brother of deceased and then the aforesaid event was disclosed along with the direction that he should not disclose the fact to his Sala. How the caller was knowing that Sala is along with the petitioner and that indicates that the call was in preplaned manner.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17559 of 2015 (3) dt.24-06-2015 As the petitioner, being husband failed to explain death of deceased. Hence, prayer for bail is rejected. (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.) PN/- U T