Bhushan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.37133 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2016 Thana- ARIYARI District- Sheikhpura ====================================================== Bhushan Yadav S/o Sitaram Yadav, R/o Vill.- Mai Amarpur, P.S.- Ariyari, District- Sheikhpura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bipin Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kumar Virendra Narayan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL ORAL ORDER 25-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Ariyari P.S. Case no. 89 of 2016 registered under Sections 304(B), 201, 34 of Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act-2016.

The petitioner who happens to be husband of the deceased is said to have committed dowry death of the daughter of the informant in association of his family members. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case by the informant. He has been languishing in custody since 6.11.2017. The matter has been compromised and the petitioner has executed land in favour of children of the deceased and charge-sheet in the case has already been framed. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37133 of 2018(4) dt.25-07-2018 2/2 On the other hand, learned APP vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the petitioner and submitted that earlier the bail prayer of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 16.3.2018 as the petitioner happens to be husband and deceased died due to head injury inflicted at the hands of the accused persons including the petitioner. The postmortem report also indicates that the doctor has opined the cause of death due to hemorrhage caused by aforesaid injury and the accused persons including the petitioner buried dead body of the deceased in the river. The petitioner cannot claim for bail on the basis of compromise between the parties in such heinous offence. Hence, he does not deserve bail.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer is rejected.

However, learned lower court is directed to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within five months, from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J) rohit/- U T