Sona Lal Sharma @ Sone Lal Sharma v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4471 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-87 Year-2013 Thana- PIPRAKOTHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== SONA LAL SHARMA @ SONE LAL SHARMA Son of Jata Thakuar Resident of Village - Kishunpur, P.S.- Piprakothi, Dist.- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Dhannjay Kumar No 2, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anil Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 03-03-2020 The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with S.Tr. No. 661/2019 arising out of Piprakothi P.S. Case No. 87 of 2013, registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Petitioner is husband of the informant and allegation against him is of demand of dowry and subjecting her to torture and cruelty. It further appears from the impugned order that he was earlier granted provisional anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 11.01.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
58374/2015 and there was direction that provisional bail of the petitioner will be confirmed on the following eventualities (I) if the matrimonial harmony is substantially restored (ii) if the informant appears before the learned court below or (iii) if the informant gets reluctant to reconcile the issue but it did not so.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4471 of 2020(3) dt.03-03-2020 2/2 this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 30921 of 2016 vide order dated 19.09.2018 observed that the period of provisional anticipatory bail lapsed on 10.01.2017.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has been arrested in this case and has been in custody since 20.11.2019 and it is the informant, who does not want to reside with the petitioner rather she wants the petitioner to reside with her in her maike, for which, the petitioner was not ready. Heard learned A.P.P. also.
Having heard both sides, it appears that provisional bail of the petitioner expired on 10.01.2017 and in spite of that he did not surrender rather he was arrested after almost two years, considering the conduct of the petitioner, at this stage, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. However, since the petitioner has been in custody, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of six months and if the Trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunilkumar/- U T