Krishna Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74009 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2022 Thana- BABUBARHI District- Madhubani ====================================================== KRISHNA KUMAR YADAV S/o Mukeshwar Yadav, R/o Village- Bela Navtoli, P.S.- Babubarhi, Distt- Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Md. Soban Asghar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Lalan Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 01-05-2023 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Babubarhi P.S. Case No. 67 of 2022, registered for offence punishable under Sections 302, 304(B), 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, the deceased is niece of the informant. Her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner in the year 2014. The accused persons, including the petitioner, subjected her to cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. They inflicted physical and mental atrocities on her. A Panchayati was convened, in which the accused persons were adamant on their demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- and a motor cycle.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74009 of 2022(4) dt.01-05-2023 2/2 On 02.04.2022, the informant got an information that the accused persons throttled her to death for non-fulfillment of above-noted demand.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the informant is not parent of the deceased, rather he is her uncle. He has submitted further that the entire allegation is false. The petitioner has been implicated in this case due to ulterior motive and he is a person of clean antecedent. On the other hand, Mr. Lalan Kumar, the learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that, as a matter of fact, the witnesses, in paragraph nos. 10 and 11 of the case diary, have stated that the petitioner had a suspicion that his wife had illicit relation with one else and on that suspicion, he throttled her to death.

In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privileges for bail, which is accordingly rejected. The learned trial court shall take every endeavour for expeditious disposal of this case.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Mahesh/- U T