Laxman Yadav vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 4408 Patna

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6994 of 2021
              Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2020 Thana- ASANWA District- Siwan
      ======================================================

1. Laxman Yadav, aged about 45 years (M), S/o Late Swaminath Yadav

2. Arun Kumar Yadav @ Arun Yadav, aged about 24 years (M), S/o Laxman Yadav

Both R/o village- Moglanipur, P.S.- Assaon, District- Siwan

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

      For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. P K Shahi, Senior Advocate with
                                       Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
      For the State            :       Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP
      For the Informant        :       Mr. Ramchandra Sahani, Advocate

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 02-09-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis

of motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioners, which

was allowed.

3. Heard Mr. P K Shahi, learned senior counsel along

with Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the

petitioners; Mr. Nagendra Prasad, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State

and Mr. Ramchandra Sahani, learned counsel for the informant.

4. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Assaon PS Case No. 70 of 2020 dated 21.06.2020, instituted Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6994 of 2021 dt.02-09-2021

under Sections 498A/304B/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code

and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

5. The allegation against the petitioners is that they,

along with other family members of the husband of the

deceased, had killed by assaulting her and then strangulating her

to death.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

the petitioner no. 1 is the cousin father-in-law of the deceased

and petitioner no. 2 is his son. It was submitted that in the FIR

itself this fact has been accepted. Learned counsel submitted

that the petitioners have their separate house, which is at some

distance from the matrimonial house of the deceased where she

lived and where death occurred. In support thereof, learned

counsel drew the attention of the Court to the Ration Cards of

the petitioners and family of the husband of the deceased which

indicates that the house number of the matrimonial home of the

deceased is 30 whereas the house number of the petitioners is

20.

7. Learned counsel also drew the attention of the Court

to Annexure-3, which is copy of the birth certificate of the son

of the deceased, whose name is mentioned in the FIR, that is,

Amrit Raj, which discloses that he was born on 02.08.2010.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6994 of 2021 dt.02-09-2021

Learned counsel submitted that this being an official record

issued in the year 2012, clearly falsifies the claim in the FIR that

the marriage took place seven years prior to the death, which

occurred on 20.06.2020. Thus, it was submitted that in any view

of the matter, offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal

Code cannot be made out as the marriage, obviously, took place

sometime in the year 2009 i.e., almost 11 years prior to the

incident.

8. Learned counsel submitted that the allegation that

because the family of the informant had not given four-wheeler

at the time of marriage, the petitioner no. 1 was angry with him,

is also falsified for the reason that the petitioners and family of

the husband of the deceased would not be expected to wait for

11 years of marriage and 10 years of the birth of her son, to

finally kill her for not bringing as dowry a four-wheeler. It was

submitted that the Court would not lose of the ground reality

and practical aspect where the entire family members of the in-

law's family are made accused and in the present case, the link

is obvious, as it has been stated that the petitioner no. 1 had

acted as guardian at the time of marriage. Learned counsel

submitted that since the father of the husband of the deceased

had died, the petitioner no. 1 had taken lead during the marriage, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6994 of 2021 dt.02-09-2021

being the senior on the side of the husband of the deceased.

Learned counsel submitted that in the post-mortem, only a

ligature mark has been found around the neck to indicate

hanging, but no other injury on the body has been detected,

which also falsifies the allegation that the deceased was brutally

assaulted, especially on the chest, and there was no injury mark.

Summing up his arguments, learned counsel submitted that the

petitioners have no other criminal antecedent.

9. Learned APP submitted that as per the FIR, the

petitioners were also party to demand of four-wheeler and

because of non-fulfillment, she has been killed by all the

accused, including the petitioners.

10. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that

death having occurred due to strangulation, the role of the

petitioners cannot be ruled out as the petitioner no. 1 was the

person instrumental in getting the marriage solemnized.

However, he could not controvert that from the date of birth of

the grandson of the informant, who is the son of the deceased,

the marriage had taken place in the year 2009, as also that the

petitioners' house is far separated from the matrimonial house of

the deceased, especially in view of copies of documents which

have been brought on record in the present case.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6994 of 2021 dt.02-09-2021

11. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in

view of there being reliable material to indicate that the son of

the deceased was born in the year 2010 and also incorrect

statement having been made in the FIR that the marriage took

place seven years prior to the date of incident which is June,

2010 as also that in the FIR itself the role of the petitioner no. 1

indicated is that he was the person who was instrumental in

getting the marriage fixed and petitioner no. 2 is his son and

they having no criminal antecedent as also no mark of any

injury on the body having been found on the deceased except for

ligature mark on the neck, the Court is persuaded to allow the

prayer for pre-arrest bail .

12. Accordingly, in the event of arrest or surrender

before the Court below within six weeks from today, the

petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.

25,000/- (twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the

like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M.,

Siwan in Assaon PS Case No. 70 of 2020, subject to the

conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 and further (i) that one of the bailors shall be a

close relative of the petitioners, and (ii) that the petitioners shall Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6994 of 2021 dt.02-09-2021

cooperate with the Court and the police/prosecution. Failure to

cooperate shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds.

13. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring

any violation of the foregoing conditions by the petitioners, to

the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate

action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the

petitioners.

                     14.    The     petition     stands     disposed         of   in   the

           aforementioned terms.


                                             (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)


Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR
U
T