Patna High CourtCR. MISC./79402/2023bail rejected

Rupesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2024-01-23Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79402 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-227 Year-2023 Thana- KHARHAGPUR District- Munger ====================================================== RUPESH YADAV SON OF RAM BILASH YADAV R/O VILL-DHAPARI, P.S.-HAVELI KHARAGPUR, DIST.-MUNGER ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manohar Prasad Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-01-2024 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of three weeks from today.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case in connection with Haweli Kharagpur P.S. Case No. 227 of 2023 dated 22.04.2023 registered for the offence/s punishable u/ss 306 and 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is alleged to have tortured the informant's daughter mentally and physically due to that she committed suicide by consuming poison.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79402 of 2023(2) dt.23-01-2024 2/2 is the husband of the informant. The petitioner never tortured the informant. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that the she committed suicide herself. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated at para 3 of the bail petition.

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the specific and the heinous nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am of the view that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out and the same is rejected with direction to the petitioner to surrender before the Court below concerned within six weeks from the date of this order and the prayer for regular bail, the learned Court below may consider his prayer for regular bail in accordance with law and on its own merits without being prejudiced by this order.

8. The application stands rejected.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) guddukr/- U T