Nand Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38447 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -214 Year- 2016 Thana -LAURIYA District- WEST CHAMPARAN (BETTIAH) ====================================================== Nand Yadav, S/o Nanhu Yadav, Resident of Village- Khekhariya, Tola Sugauli, P.S. Lauriya, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 19-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner, in the present case, is seeking regular bail in Lauriya P.S. Case No. 214/2016 registered under Sections 3043B / 201 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

A perusal of the First Information Report would show that a 19 year old victim lady was married to this petitioner in the year 2015. It is alleged that the informant got information about the death of his daughter through his another son-in-law on 29.11.2016. Further the informant alleged that when he reached the house of the petitioner, he was told that his daughter is being taken for treatment to Lauriya Hospital and he was also asked to come there but when this informant reached the said hospital, he

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38447 of 2017 (2) dt.19-08-2017 2/2 could not find his daughter or her family members. The allegation is that his daughter was killed due to not meeting demand of dowry by this petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the wife of the petitioner died of diarrhoea and, to that effect, information was given to her father and he had also come to the petitioner's place and had seen his daughter. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for bail saying that the petitioner is the husband and is unable to explain the death of his wife which has admittedly taken place in his house. The petitioner is in custody since 28.06.2017 and the investigation in the present case is still going on. In the facts and circumstances stated above, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner in the above mentioned case. The application stand dismissed. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Dilip, AR U T