Prabhu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.52826 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -71 Year- 2016 Thana -SABAUR District- BHAGALPUR ====================================================== Prabhu Yadav, Son of Shushil Yadav, resident of Village Bharokhar, P.S. Goradih (Sabour), District Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Davendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 19-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 07.08.2016 in connection with S.T. No. 656/16, arising out of Sabour (Goradih) P.S. Case No. 71/16 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, as lodged by the father of the victim girl is that his daughter Gunjan Kumari was married to one Shyam Yadav in the year 2013 and her husband along with other co-accused for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry has killed her daughter.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is brother-in-law (Nandoi) of the deceased and languishing in custody since 07.08.2016. He submits that general

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52826 of 2016 (2) dt.19-12-2016 2/2 and omnibus allegation has been levelled against him and the husband of the deceased is already in custody. He further submits that the petitioner has a separate home and hearth and has no concerned with the family affairs of the deceased. It is further submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted, hence, there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence. However, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the petitioner is named in the First Information Report, hence, opposes the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances and submission of the parties, since charge-sheet has been submitted and mother-in-law, father-in-law and gotni of the deceased have already been granted anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Annexure-2) and that the husband is already in custody, let the petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.D.J. VIth, Bhagalpur, in connection with Sabour (Goradih) P.S. Case No. 71/16.

(Nilu Agrawal, J.) Rajesh/- U T