Sandeep Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3833 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-108 Year-2023 Thana- BARHARIA District- Siwan ====================================================== Sandeep Yadav S/O Mahanth Yadav Resident of Chandramanhata, PSBarhariya, Dist.- Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kumari Anupam, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Barhariya P.S. Case No. 108 of 2023 dated 29.03.2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the coaccused persons are alleged to have killed the informant's daughter due to non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- as dowry. It is further alleged that the dead body of the deceased was thrown in the well.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. There is a delay of six days in lodging the F.I.R. without any explanation. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the informant's daughter. It is further submitted that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3833 of 2025(2) dt.25-04-2025 2/2 petitioner is the husband of the deceased and he has no concern with the alleged offence. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased who killed her on account of demand of dowry.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the heinous nature of allegation against the petitioner. It is not fit case for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected and the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court below concerned within six weeks from the date of this order and pray for regular bail, the learned Court below may consider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner in accordance with law and on its own merits without being prejudiced by this order.

7. The application stands rejected.

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