Patna High CourtCR. MISC./83429/2023bail rejected

Sanjay Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2024-04-10Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83429 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-181 Year-2022 Thana- ARARIA District- Araria ====================================================== 1.

Sanjay Yadav, Son Of Late Hari Lal Yadav, R/O Village- Kusiyargaon, P.S. And District- Araria 2.

Pinki Devi, Wife Of Sanjay Yadav, R/O Village- Kusiyargaon, P.S. And District- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vijay Kishore Bharti, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 10-04-2024 The present application with regard to petitioner no.1, namely, Sanjay Yadav has been dismissed as having become infructuous vide order dated 18.01.2024.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner no.2 and learned APP for the State.

3. The petitioner no.2, namely, Pinki Devi, is apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

4. As per the prosecution case, the FIR has been lodged against two named accused persons other than the petitioner with an allegation of killing the daughter of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83429 of 2023(4) dt.10-04-2024 2/2 informant for non-fulfillment of dowry demand.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner no.2 submits that the antecedent of the petitioner is clean and a co-accused, namely, Chandan Yadav has been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 26.07.2023 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 23790 of 2023. Petitioner no.2 is not named in the FIR rather she has been made accused only on the basis of suspicion and except suspicion, there is nothing against her.

6. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in paragraph 26 of the case diary it has come that the deceased was last seen with petitioner no.2 and, thereafter, her dead body was recovered.

7. In this background, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner no.2 in connection with Araria P.S. Case No. 181/2022, pending before the learned CJM, Araria. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is hereby rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Ashwini/- U T