Baleshwar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.608 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-355 Year-2023 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya ====================================================== Baleshwar Yadav Son Of Late Gokul Yadav R/O Village- Kahudag Dakbangla, P.S.- Barachatti, Dist.- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Braj Kishore Pd.(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 09-04-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Barachatti P.S. Case no. 355 of 2023 registered under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that his daughter was married to the petitioner herein. Seven named accused persons including the petitioner herein tortured his daughter for demand of dowry, threatened her that she would be killed and ultimately she was done to death.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case only for the reason that he happens to be the husband of the deceased. It was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.608 of 2024(4) dt.09-04-2024 2/2 over a trivial dispute between husband and wife that she committed suicide by hanging herself. The petitioner is in custody since 2.7.2023. Though allegation has made against all the family members, it is submitted that final form was submitted against the other accused. It is lastly submitted that charge-sheet has been submitted under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner in the F.I.R, the petitioner being the husband of the deceased and the material that has transpired in course of investigation with respect to altercation/fight between the petitioner and the deceased, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Harsh/- U T