Back
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Md. Hedayat – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Keredari P.S. Case No. 92 of 2013 (S.T. Case No. 431 of 2014) instituted under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence rather he was residing Saudi Arabia. The wife of petitioner died on 30.12.2013 after 12 years of marriage and they were leading happy conjugal life. No specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner. It is further submitted that after completion of investigation, petitioner was not sent up for trial and his other family members who faced trial and have been acquitted vide judgment dated 23.04.2018 passed in S.T. No. 431 of 2014 and S.T. No. 96 of 2015. It is further submitted that petitioner was also summoned in the above Sessions Trial case under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. which was challenged before the Hon’ble Hi
Anticipatory bail can be granted when parties reach a compromise, with conditions ensuring dignity and cooperation in ongoing investigations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
