High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Turmil Yadav @ Durmil Yadav & Ors. vs The State Of Bihar on 13 September, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Turmil Yadav @ Durmil Yadav & Ors. vs The State Of Bihar on 13 September, 2011
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              Criminal Miscellaneous No.18397 of 2011
                      1. Turmil Yadav @ Durmil Yadav, son of late Chhutahru
                         Yadav
                      2. Musani Devi, wife of Turmil Yadav
                      3. Kavita Kumari, D/o - Turmil Yadav
                      4. Bipin Yadav, son of Turmil Yadav
                       All resident of village Posdaha, P.S. - Narpatganj, District -
                      Araria.
                                                                    -------- Petitioners.
                                                 Versus
                   The State of Bihar                        -------- Opposite Party
                                                ******

04. 13.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioners, apprehending their arrest in

connection with Narpatganj P.S. Case No. 256/2000

(G.R. No. 2359/2000) for the offences under Sections of

the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Araria, are named accused in this

case being in-laws of daughter of the informant who died

under suspicious circumstance who died around 7 to 8

years of her marriage under suspicious circumstance.

Submission is that there is no allegation

against the petitioners, rather, in fact, the lady was living

with her parents from where she proceeded for Sasural

when she was ill-treated by her parents side. Learned

Additional Public Prosecutor drawing attention towards
paragraph 8 of the case diary containing statement of the

victim to a person by stating about her being ill-treated

and administered poisonous substance by her in-laws.

In view of the above statement which may be

considered as dying declaration for the present

petitioners are not entitled for the privilege sought.

Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of

the petitioners stands rejected.

Rajeev/                        ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)