Ritesh Kumar Mandal @ Ritesh Mandal v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3677 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-318 Year-2019 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== RITESH KUMAR MANDAL @ RITESH MANDAL Son of Bijen Mandal, Resident of Village - Dighi Ward No. 4, P.S.- Murliganj, Distt - Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Neeraj Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 05-06-2020 Heard both sides through Video Conferencing.
Petitioner seeks bail in Murliganj P.S. Case No.318 of 2019 registered under Sections 498A, 304B and 34 of the IPC and under Sections 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The informant (father of the deceased) disclosed that his daughter was married to the petitioner in the year 2016 but the mother-in-law of the deceased was always torturing his daughter in absence of her husband. Her husband came from Delhi and they all assaulted his daughter and burnt her to death. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation of assault is false and concocted. The petitioner never demanded any dowry nor tortured his wife. The wife of the petitioner was cooking and accidentally she got fire while she was cooking. She was brought to the hospital for treatment but
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3677 of 2020(3) dt.05-06-2020 2/2 she did not survive. The S.D.P.O. and the S.P., Madhepura in their supervision notes found the case true under Section 306 of the IPC but it appears that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died of extensive burn injury and the witnesses disclosed that on the date of occurrence also the petitioner picked up a quarrel with his wife and assaulted her. Having considered the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. The trial court is directed to hold the trial on day to day basis and conclude the same within one year from the date of receipt of this court. If the trial is not concluded within one year, the petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail thereafter.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Harish/- U T