Lalit Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29509 of 2018 Arising Out of P.S.Case No. -97 Year- 2017 Thana -GOPALPUR District- BHAGALPUR ====================================================== Lalit Yadav, Son of Jaicho Yadav @ Jecho Yadav, Resident of VillageLatra, P.S. Gopalpur, District Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amardeep For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Bachan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-06-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Gopalpur P.S.Case No.97 of 2017 pending in the Court of ACJMIst, Naugachia registered for an offence under Sections 304(B), 120(B) and 201/34 of the IPC.

The informant of this case is father of the deceased. It is alleged that the petitioner developed fancy with his daughter and after abducting he married with her. After marriage, the family members of the petitioner raised objection on account of being inter-caste marriage and so, the petitioner moved the deceased at the place of his sister where the husband and his family members committed her murder.

It has been submitted that the petitioner had brought his

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29509 of 2018 (4) dt.29-06-2018 2/2 wife at the place of his sister for the purpose of her safety and after keeping the deceased at her sister's place he went to Delhi for his livelihood. The petitioner had no motive to commit murder of his own wife. There is no eye witness to the occurrence. The petitioner has been made accused only on suspicion as he had married against the wish of informant.

The learned APP opposed the submissions.

On perusal of FIR and the case diary, it appears that the marriage between the petitioner and deceased was an inter-caste which took place on 21.05.2016. She was residing with this petitioner at his place where she was killed within a year. Her dead body was buried in a field which was seized after excavating soil upto 8 feet ditch. The informant and witnesses have supported the allegation of demand of Rs.2,00000/- by the petitioner and his family members since the date of marriage. The death took place within one year of marriage at the place of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for bail is rejected.

(Sanjay Kumar, J) B.Kr./- U