Tunni Yadav @ Tunnu Yadav @ Tunni @ Yogendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.37381 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -138 Year- 2016 Thana -GAYA MUFFSIL District- GAYA ======================================================

1. Tunni Yadav @ Tunnu Yadav @ Tunni @ Yogendra Yadav, Son of Kuldeep Yadav, Resident of Village-Sanaut, Police Station-Muffasil, District-Gaya.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Akbar Ali ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 09-10-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in Muffasil P.S. Case No. 138 of 2016 instituted for the offence under Sections-498(A), 365/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in which, later on Section-304(B) was also added.

The petitioner is husband of the deceased.

There is allegation against this petitioner that she was tortured in Sasural for which, Panchayati was fixed on 18-03-2016. The informant reached the Sasural of his daughter but he did not find his daughter and the petitioner and other family members were found absconding. The informant learnt that this petitioner has taken the daughter of the informant on bicycle from the house and she is still traceless.

The case diary has been received.

It has come in the case diary that dead body of the daughter

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37381 of 2017 (3) dt.09-10-2017 of the informant was found. It is also mentioned at paragraph-8 of the case diary that this petitioner took the daughter of the informant on bicycle and he did not return.

From the order of the court below, it appears that charge has already been framed in this case.

Keeping in view the specific allegation against this petitioner, the prayer for bail is rejected.

The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is in custody since 01-04-2016, The court below is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner.

The petitioner is given liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the court below itself after six months in the event, the trial is not concluded within aforesaid period and trial court will give reason in its order for not disposing of the trial within six months. (Sanjay Priya, J) A.K.V./- U T