Kamta Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65548 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-172 Year-2021 Thana- GHOSI District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Kamta Yadav Son Of Chitawan Yadav Resident Of Village - Nurpur (Dhamapur),P.S. - Ghoshi, District - Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dashrath Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 08-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 304B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per prosecution case, it is a case of dowry death due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand and the petitioner is alleged to be husband of the deceased. It is further alleged that after committing murder of the deceased they also cremated her dead body for the purpose of hiding the evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. The petitioner is husband of the deceased due to which he has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65548 of 2023(3) dt.08-01-2024 2/2 falsely been implicated in this case. The informant is not an eye witness of the alleged occurrence and there is no prior compliant lodged against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Moreover, he is languishing in judicial custody since 17.05.2022. Learned APP appearing for the state has vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and his wife died in abnormal conditions and he has full responsibility to keep his wife with proper honour and dignity. During investigation witnesses also supported the prosecution version. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the gravity of this case, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial within six months, failing which the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Lata/- U T