Rajendra Yadav @ Ravindra Yadav @ Chhotu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60957 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2019 Thana- AMAS District- Gaya ====================================================== RAJENDRA YADAV @ RAVINDRA YADAV @ CHHOTU YADAV Son of Sita Ram Yadav Resident of Village-Balwa Par, Police Station-Tekari, District-Gaya at present Resident of Village-Ulle, Police Station-Alipur, District-Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. S.R.P. Baxi Sinha, Sr.Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mohammed Arif ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 03-03-2020 Heard the parties.

This application is for grant of regular bail in connection with Amas P.S.case No.20 of 2019 for the offences under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution case, petitioner happens to be husband of the deceased and he has called her at Sherghati along with the Pass Book and also asked her to come alone and later on her dead body was found.

Firstly it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution story does not appear to be believable as the petitioner at that time was residing at Delhi and secondly, it has been submitted that the deceased was residing at her Maike and she has committed suicide and the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60957 of 2019(5) dt.03-03-2020 2/2 petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and another submission, which has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that she was killed in some other manner and the allegation of demand is false and concocted. Petitioner is in custody since 12.6.2019 .

Heard learned A.P.P. , who has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the death is due to strangulation as per the postmortem report. There is specific allegation against him that the petitioner has called her and apart from that the impugned order discloses that from the CDR details, location of the mobile was also found around the place of the occurrence. Having heard both sides and considering the above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner . Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U T