Dukhalal Yadav @ Dukha Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70141 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2022 Thana- MARAUNA District- Supaul ====================================================== 1.
DUKHALAL YADAV @ DUKHA YADAV S/o Late Mangen Yadav @ Momen Yadav R/o Village- Mungraha, Ward no. 14, P.S.- Marauna, DisttSupaul. 2.
Amerika Devi W/o Dukhalal yadav R/o Village- Mungraha, Ward no. 14, P.S.- Marauna, Distt- Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Vinod Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Udeshya Kumar Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 21-07-2023
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioners seek bail, who are in custody since 20.06.2022, in connection with Marauna P.S. Case No.95/2022 dated 19.06.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304(B), 498(A) of the IPC & Sections 3⁄4 of D.P. Act.
3. According to prosecution case, the petitioners being the parents-in-law of the deceased are alleged to have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70141 of 2022(5) dt.21-07-2023 2/3 committed murder of the deceased due to non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the ground that the petitioners are in-law of the deceased. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R.
5. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners and the postmortem report also supports the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R.
6. Vide order dated 12.05.2023, a report was called for from the learned trial court. Report dated 10.07.2023 of the learned trial court reveals that out of 7 prosecution witnesses 2 prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the case is pending for examination of the rest of the witnesses.
7. Considering the report of the learned trial court that out of 7 prosecution witnesses 2 prosecution witnesses have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70141 of 2022(5) dt.21-07-2023 3/3 already been examined, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail in connection with Marauna P.S. Case No.95/2022, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M.-VI, Supaul.
8. Prayer is refused.
9. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest. (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) amit/- U T