IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr. Misc. No.24084 of 2010
GODIL YADAV, son of Congress Yadav
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
6/ 21.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner, who is husband of the deceased Tanika
Devi, is an accused in a case under Section 304 (B) of the Indian
Penal Code
The informant stated in the First Information Report
that on receipt of information, he went to his daughter’s Sasural
where he found his daughter in an unconscious stage. All of them
including the petitioner took the victim to Referal Hospital,
Bounsi. The doctor at Bounsi referred the patient (victim) to
Bhagalpur, where she died during the course of treatment. The
informant learnt that accused persons used to assault her for non-
fulfillment of demand of Motorcycle. The informant believes that
the accused persons have killed his daughter by administering
poison.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that it would appear
from the prosecution case that the girl had not earlier complained
about either demand of dowry or torture. He further submits that it
would appear from the First Information Report that the informant
learnt about the alleged torture and demand of dowry after her
death. He further submits that charge-sheet has been submitted
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits
that the Viscera report, as called for by the Court, has been
2
received. The petitioner is in custody since 04.03.2010.
Counsel for the State submits that the Viscera report
shows the presence of poisonous element in the body of the
deceased.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the
present. His prayer for bail is rejected. However, he may renew his
prayer for bail after ten months from today.
(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)
Uday/