Dismissed

Raju Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Sept 2020B.A./1514/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 438 CrPC linked to a dowry death, the High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petition. The court noted strong indications of the petitioner's participation and the lack of medical certification for the deceased's dying declaration while refusing to grant bail in view of the serious circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; petitioner remains in custody.

Raju Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Domestic Violence | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B. A. No. 1514 of 2020

¶3

¶4

Raju Yadav … … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ---

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.

¶9

¶10

8/14.09.2020 Heard the parties.

¶11

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No. 162 of 2019.

¶12

The marriage of the daughter of the informant was solemnized with the petitioner on 24.04.2019. It has been alleged that there was a demand of a motor-cycle and on 03.07.2019, he was informed that due to short-circuit, her daughter was burnt. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased.

¶13

In course of investigation, the statement of the independent witnesses have been recorded in paragraph 14, 15, 16, 39 & 40 in which they have stated that the petitioner used to torture the deceased for nonfulfillment of demand of dowry. They have also stated that she has put herself on fire and thereafter jumped into the well.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to paragraph 31 of the case diary which is the fard bayan of the deceased and which has been construed by the prosecution as a dying declaration, but it has not been certified as to whether the deceased was in a position to speak or not by the concerned doctor.

¶15

In view of the fact that there are strong circumstances to indicate the participation of the petitioner in the commission of the offence, I am not inclined to allow this application and the same is hereby rejected.

¶16

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶17

R. Shekhar Cp 3

Raju Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Alias Anil Kumar Dwivedi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Faij Ashraf Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikash Verma Alias Vikash Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Panda Munda Alias Ravi Pahan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kerwa Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand