This single-judge court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner, husband of the deceased, was facing murder charges. The court denied bail due to direct allegations of participation, the old FIR date, and the petitioner remaining an absconder for nearly ten years.
The application for anticipatory bail is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12504 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2010 Thana- RAJGIR District- Nalanda
======================================================
SATYENDRA YADAV @ SATYENDRA, S/o Late Gagan Yadav, Resident of Village - Chamardiha, P.S.- Rajgir, District - Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mrs.Kumari Sujata Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : None ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER
2 05-03-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one
appears for the State to oppose this application.
Petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Rajgir P.S. Case No. 78 of 2010 registered for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He happens to be the husband of the deceased, the allegation against him in the FIR is that because the sister of the informant was ugly, she was beaten by the accused persons before a day of occurrence and thereafter by pouring kerosone oil on her she was burnt. The dead body was found in the house in the burnt condition. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is an employee in a company and because of his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12504 of 2019(2) dt.05-03-2019 2/2
employment reason he could not surrender in the case earlier even though the co-accused was arrested, faced the trial and she was acquitted.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records, this Court finds that in this case the petitioner is the husband against whom there are some direct allegation of participation in the alleged occurrence, moreover the case was lodged in the year 2010, the petitioner is moving this Court after having been declared absconder and it is almost 10 years by now. In these circumstances, this Court would not be willing to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
The application is dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
arvind/-
U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in the present circumstances.
Whether a delay of nearly ten years in approaching this Court justifies denying anticipatory bail.
Whether allegations of direct participation and the petitioner being an absconder preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SATYENDRA YADAV
The State of Bihar
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
