Govind Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69808 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2019 Thana- LAUKAHA District- Madhubani ====================================================== GOVIND YADAV Son of Sita Ram Yadav Resident of Village- Malin, P.S.- Laukaha (Lalmaniya O.P.), District- Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Amirika Devi Wife of Govind Yadav Resident of Village- Belha, P.S.- Laukaha (Lalmaniya O.P.), P.O.- Malin, District- Madhubani. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Subhash Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State/O.P. No.2 :

Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, APP Mr. Shankar Kumar Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Krishna Chandra Jha, Adv/ ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 24-05-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner learned counsel for the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Laukaha P.S. Case No. 50 of 2019 (Sessions Trial No. 82/2020) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 307 and 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The allegation, as per the First Information Report, is that while the informant was sleeping in her Maikey, her husband i.e. petitioner came and with intention to kill, tried to slit her neck and fled away.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner alleged

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69808 of 2021(2) dt.24-05-2022 2/2 and he has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that allegation of assault against the petitioner and demand of dowry is false and concocted. The petitioner is in custody since 29.8.2019.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant/Opposite party No. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the charges have been framed. Regards being had to the submission made by the parties and taking into consideration the materials on record, the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 29.8.2019, charges have been framed and there is no likelihood that the petitioner will abscond or tamper with the evidence, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, let the petitioner, above named, be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-5th, Madhubani, in connection with Laukaha P.S. Case No. 50 of 2019 (Sessions Trial No. 82/2020).

S.Ali/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) U T