Ram Chandra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2017 Thana- NADI District- Supaul ====================================================== RAM CHANDRA YADAV S/o Rameshwar Yadav Resident of Rasuar Tola, Kyotapatti, Barhara, P.S.- Supaul Nadi, District- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 28-05-2020 This case has been posted before me for hearing through video- conferencing, under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, in view of Nation passing through lockdown as an aftermath of the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case for the offence punishable under Sections 364 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation in the written report is that this petitioner used to commit torture with daughter of the informant for demand of motorcycle. He always told that he will not allow to live the daughter of the informant in the house if demand of motorcycle is not fulfilled. The informant went to meet his daughter but she was not found in the house. He enquired about his daughter from the father of petitioner but he did not give any

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29 of 2020(5) dt.28-05-2020 2/2 satisfactory reply.

Case diary has been received.

The learned Sessions Judge has mentioned in the impugned order that in para-6 and 14 of the case diary, the witnesses have stated that one Sanjeev Yadav had brought the daughter of the informant to the house of this petitioner in Haryana. The other witnesses have stated in para-23, 24 and 25 of the case diary that after reaching the daughter of the informant in Haryana, she has been made traceless. In para-149, 150, 151 of the case diary, the witnesses have also stated that petitioner killed his wife in Haryana.

Considering the fact that petitioner is the husband of the deceased, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his payer for bail is rejected at this stage in connection with Supaul Nadi P.S. Case No. 16 of 2017 pending before the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1, Supaul. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) devendra/- U T