Dismissed

Rama Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC28 May 2020CR. MISC./62340/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Patna rejected the petitioner's bail prayer in a dowry death case initially registered as murder (302 IPC) but later charge-sheeted under 304-B/34 IPC, despite the petitioner alleging accidental death and absence of examined prosecution witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail stands rejected. Permission to renew the prayer within nine months from receipt or production of a copy of this order if trial is pending.

Rama Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Dowry and Cruelty | Patna HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62340 of 2019

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-250 Year-2017 Thana- SIKARPUR District- West Champaran

¶3

======================================================

¶4

RAMA YADAV, Son of Sri Ramlal Yadav, Resident of Village- Kharkatwa Murli, P.S.- Shikarpur, District- West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party

¶9

====================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma- Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1-A.P.P. ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

8 28-05-2020

¶14

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State through video conferencing.

¶15

Petitioner is languishing in jail custody since 10.10.2017 and seeks bail in connection with Shikarpur P. S. Case No.250 of 2017, initially, registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C., but after investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Section 304-B/ 34 of the I.P.C.

¶16

Petitioner is husband of the deceased and the informant claimed that when she reached at the house of the deceased, the deceased disclosed that it was petitioner, who lit fire on her body.

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62340 of 2019(8) dt.28-05-2020 2/2

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that deceased was caught in fire accidentally while she was cooking meal. He further submits that the petitioner is in jail custody since long, but up-till-now trial could not be concluded.

¶19

The report sent by the learned trial Court goes to show that up-till-now not a single prosecution witness could be examined.

¶20

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions of the parties, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner.

¶21

Accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

¶22

However, if the trial of the petitioner is not concluded

¶23

within nine months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

¶24

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)

¶25

vikash/-

¶26

U T

Rama Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Yadav v. The State of Bihar

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

Alok Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Subodh Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Kundan Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Amarjeet Yadav @ Amariya Vs The State of Bihar

Gunjan Kumar @ Krishna Vs the State of Bihar

Kranti Singh Vs The State of Bihar